alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DOL Town Hall with Secretary Walsh and

Deputy Secretary Su

This message is intended for all DOL federal employees and contractors

Dear DOL Colleagues,

I hope you are having a wonderful summer so far. It is hard to believe that it has been almost 5 months since the

Secretary first began. He has learned so much from all of you and looks forward to much more in the months and years

ahead. The Secretary is looking forward to bringing the Department together again to discuss priorities for the

Department moving forward, share his experience over his first few months, and to introduce you to our new Deputy

Secretary, Julie Su.

Additionally, representatives from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) and

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will share important office reentry updates. I hope you can

join us as we welcome the Deputy Secretary, discuss the critical work and priorities for the coming months, and discuss

our plans for increasing onsite presence in our workspaces.

SAVE THE DATE

DOL Town Hall with Secretary Walsh and Deputy Secretary Su

Featuring reentry updates from OASAM

Thursday, July 22, 2021

1:00pm Eastern Time

Microsoft Teams Live

Please find a link to access the Town Hall.

For those who may need ASL interpretation, please find a link to the ASL Interpreted Town Hall.

If you have any questions about reentry that you would like to be addressed during the Town Hall, please email

We look forward to talking to you soon!

Dan Koh

Chief of Staff

Last updated: July 15, 2021

LABORNET
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
This  scheudule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from  the
September 30, 1998 Financial  Statements  included in Wisconsin  Power and Light
Company's  Form 10-Q and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000107832
<NAME>                        WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1,221,288
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    145,137
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         82,382
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       52,230
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 122,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,623,743
<COMMON>                                       66,183
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      199,338
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            303,189
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 568,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    59,963
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           354,608
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             73,347
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      56,975
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 510,140
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1,623,743
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      551,444
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           18,869  <F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     477,268
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     477,268 <F1>
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        74,176
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             326
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 74,502
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       26,591
<NET-INCOME>                                   29,042
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    2,483
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  26,559
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       43,756
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      30,117
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         159,606
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0       <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0       <F2>
<FN>
<F1> Income  tax  expense  is  not  included  in  Operating  Expense  in the
      Consolidated Statements of Income.
<F2> Earnings per share of common stock is not reflected because all common
       shares are held by Interstate Energy Corporation.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. LEE

No. 152 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 580.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          88,077
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (88,077)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)



</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

DAVID JAMES BREWER, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-1884

LT Case No. 2021-303354-CFDB

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed February 21, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County, 

Raul A. Zambrano, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Document

Exhibit 4.1

DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO  
SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
The following description of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is qualified in its entirety by reference to our amended and restated charter and our amended and restated by-laws, each of which we have previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and applicable law. As used in this exhibit, “we,” “our” and “MLIC” mean Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and do not include its subsidiaries or parent, MetLife, Inc.
As of March 7, 2022, our only class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act is common stock, par value $0.01 per share (“common stock”). We have authorized 1,000,000,000 shares of common stock, of which 494,466,664 shares were outstanding as of March 7, 2022. All of such issued and outstanding shares are fully paid and non-assessable. The remaining shares of authorized and unissued common stock will be available for future issuance without additional shareholder approval, provided that no such shares shall be issued without the prior written consent of the Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York (or any governmental officer, body or authority that succeeds the Superintendent as the primary regulator of our insurance business under applicable law).
All of the issued and outstanding common stock is owned directly by MetLife, Inc. Our common stock is not listed on any securities exchange. There is no authorized preferred stock. 
Dividends 
The holders of common stock are entitled to receive dividends as and when declared by our board of directors. Dividends may be paid in cash, property, bonds or shares of MLIC, including the bonds or shares of other corporations, except as limited by applicable law. There is no requirement or assurance that we will declare and pay any dividends. 
Voting Rights 
The holders of common stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters on which the holders of common stock are entitled to vote, including the election of directors, and do not have any cumulative voting rights. 
Liquidation and Dissolution 
In the event of our liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, the holders of common stock are entitled to share equally and ratably in our assets, if any, remaining after the payment of all of our liabilities. 
Other Rights 
The holders of common stock have no preemptive, conversion, redemption or sinking fund rights. The holders of shares of our common stock are not required to make additional capital contributions.
1
#### JERSEY CITY METALS COMPANY, RESPONDENT-PROSECUTOR IN CERTIORARI, v. ELIZABETH BRENNAN, PETITIONER-DEFENDANT IN CERTIORARI.

Argued January 20, 1932

Decided June 16, 1932.

Before Justices Tken-chaed and Donges.

For the prosecutor in *certiorari, Frank G. Turner.*

For the defendant in *certiorari, Nellie T. Smith (Samuel Tartalsky,*of counsel).

Pee Cukiam.

Michael Brennan, the husband of the petitioner, was employed by the prosecutor, the Jersey City Metals Company, as a tinsmith helper. On December 27th, 1928, while working on the roof of a building, he fell from a ladder causing injuries to his chest. The company paid Brennan $63.14 compensation to February 2d, 1929.

*847On January 21st, 1930, Brennan filed a petition for compensation and the company answered, not denying the accident, nor the payment of the $63.14 as compensation, but averring that Brennan had recovered from his injuries. During the pendency of the cause Brennan died, as was claimed as a result of the injury sustained, and his widow on behalf of herself and minor children, filed a supplemental petition for compensation to which the company, although served therewith, did not file any answer. On the hearing the workmen’s compensation bureau found in favor of the petitioner.

The employer then sued out this writ and now contends in effect that there was no evidence of an accident apart from that of the physician, which it is contended was incompetent.

We can see no merit in this point because the accident, if not established by the admission contained in the company’s answer as we think it was, certainly was established at the hearing by the testimony of Abram S. Blum, the prosecutor of this writ (trading under the company name). He testified in effect that he was present at the scene of the accident at the time or immediately thereafter, and to matters of fact which proved the occurrence of the accident as alleged in the petition. Moreover, by the direction of the prosecutor, the workman was sent to a doctor and the doctor testified to the history of the matter given him by the patient for the purpose of treatment; so upon the whole case we conclude that there was ample evidence to support the finding of the workmen’s compensation bureau.

Hext it is said that the workmen’s compensation bureau did not have jurisdiction, and this question seems to be raised now for the first time. We think that it had jurisdiction. The point, though not plainly stated, seems to be that the petition was not filed in time. We think it was. The accident happened on December 27th, 1928. After the waiting period the employer paid Brennan $63.14, the last payment whereof being to February 2d, 1929, and since the petition was filed January 21st, 1930, it was within one year of the last payment, as required by the statute.

Lastly the employer argues that the supplemental petition, *848filed by the wife upon her husband’s death, was not served. The record is to the contrary. It discloses, we think, that it was served.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the March
31, 1998 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            6386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    72182
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3162
<INVENTORY>                                     149543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                231703
<PP&E>                                          293738
<DEPRECIATION>                                  183950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  377981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            59695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69674
<OTHER-SE>                                      206441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    377981
<SALES>                                         103780
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                103780
<CGS>                                            67183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    67183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7016
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4455
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

I, Kimmy Lockwood,certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 of K-tel International, Inc.;

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a.               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a.               All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2007

 
|        | /s/ Kimmy Lockwood           |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kimmy Lockwood               |   |
|   | Principal  Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-03287-RJH     Document 4      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BRUCE LANIER.

(Filed *21*November 1962.)

Forgery § 3—

Conflicting evidence as to whether the signature on the check in question was that of the maker or whether defendant signed the name of the purported maker, *held*to take the issue to the jury.

Appeal by the defendant from *Olive, J.,*May 1962 Term of Rowan.

Criminal prosecution upon two indictments which charge (1) that on January 7, 1961, defendant forged a check in the amount of $4,700.00 upon the account of Herbert Flora, Jr., and (2) that on the same day he uttered the forged check.

Plea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty.

From judgment imposed, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.*

*Robert M. Davis for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Upon the trial in the Superior Court the defendant testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he deposited the check in question in his account at the Scottish Bank in Salisbury. He denied, however, that he wrote the signature of Herbert Flora, Jr. on it. On *184
      *the*contrary, *he*said that he saw Flora sign the check; that Flora then delivered it to him in payment of a $4,600.00 gambling debt and a $100.00 used car he had sold Flora. The teller and the bookkeeper of the Security Bank and Trust Company at Salisbury, which cashed the check, each testified that in his opinion the signature on the questioned check was that of Herbert Flora, Jr.

Flora himself swore that he did not sign the check and knew nothing about it until he received it in his bank statement at the end of the month. His testimony was that, after buying a used car from the defendant for his son, the defendant gave him two drinks in a shot glass: the first one at 5:00 p.m., the second one at 6:00 p.m.; that shortly after the second drink he knew nothing more until 10:00 p.m. when he came to himself on the floor of defendant’s office. A special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an expert assigned to the full-time examination of questioned documents, after studying enlargements of the $4,700.00 check and a number of genuine Flora checks, testified that in his opinion the signature on the questioned check was not written by the writer of the genuine Flora signatures used for comparison.

The question of fact which arose upon this conflicting evidence was for the jury to answer. The charge of the court fairly presented the defendant’s contentions to the jury and correctly stated the applicable principles of law. The jury answered the issue against the defendant in a trial in which we find no reversible error.

No error.