alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE SPINKS

No. 49 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 417.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 May 1970.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
     <CIK>                    0000350920
<NAME>                        MEDIQ Incorporated
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                           1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           3,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,077
<INVENTORY>                                     13,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,751
<PP&E>                                         249,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,019
<BONDS>                                        128,131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,322
<COMMON>                                        20,068
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257,552
<SALES>                                         19,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,038
<CGS>                                           16,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,893
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  34,941
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (8,037)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99





Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Bairnco Corporation:



We have audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) the consolidated financial statements of Bairnco Corporation and subsidiaries referred to in our report dated January 27, 2005, which is included in the annual report to stockholders and incorporated by reference in Part IV, Item 15(a)2 of this form.  Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole.  The Schedule II is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements.  This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.





/s/ Grant Thornton LLP



Orlando, Florida

January 27, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131375 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

SHEILA M. TOBEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131375 

 COA: 267805 

WCAC: 04-000500 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
Case 1:06-cv-15001-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
No. 21,247.

#### Clayton L. Stuart, *Appellee and Appellant,*v. The City of Kansas City, *Appellant and Appellee.*

OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; Albert J. Herrod, judge.

Opinion denying a rehearing and directing a new trial on certain questions filed March 9, 1918.

(For former opinion of reversal see *ante,*p. 307.)

*H. J. Smith, Thomas M. Van Cleave,*and *Lee Judy,*all of Kansas City, for the appellant and appellee.

*J. O. Emerson,*and *David J. Smith,*both of Kansas City, for the appellee and appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

In an opinion rendered on January 12, 1918 (102 Kan. 307), the judgment of the district court was reversed, and a new trial was granted.

The plaintiff has filed an application for a rehearing, and, in that application, asks that, if a rehearing is denied and the judgment stands reversed, the new trial be directed on the proposition on which the judgment was revérsed. The judgment. was reversed on the ground that an instruction was erroneous because it did not submit to the jury the question of the defendant’s knowledge of the dangerously playful habits of William Deeds, a fellow workman with whom the plaintiff was working at the time of his injury.

The judgment of reversal is adhered to, and a new trial is granted on the following questions: (1) Was the plaintiff injured by William Deeds, accidentally or in sport? (2) If the plaintiff was injured by William Deeds in sport, was William Deeds in the habit of indulging in dangerous play with his fellow workmen? (3) If William Deeds was in the habit of indulging in dangerous play with his fellow workmen, did the defendant have notice or knowledge of that habit?

After these facts have been ascertained, judgment will be rendered by the trial court in accordance with the facts so found and in obedience to the law declared in the former opinion.
#### McNEELY v. RAILWAY CO.

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 502.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 December 1973.
#### RONNIE BURLESON, By his Next Friend EARLE BURLESON v. JOHNNY HELTON and EARL BURLESON v. JOHNNY HELTON. and MRS. GRACE BURLESON v. JOHNNY HELTON. and DIANA WHITTEMORE, By her Next Friend, VANCE WHITTEMORE v. JOHNNY HELTON. and VERONA WHITTEMORE, By her Next Friend, VANCE WHITTEMORE v. JOHNNY HELTON.

(Filed 27 February 1963.)

Appeal by defendant from *Martin, S.J.,*November 1962 Regular Civil Term of BuNCOmbe.

Actions to recover damages for personal injuries.

Plaintiffs’ evidence tends to establish the following facts: The five plaintiffs and three other persons were passengers in an automobile owned and being operated by defendant. The accident occurred about 1:30 P.M., 10 June 1962, in Yancey County on Highway 197, a mountain road known as the Ivy Gap Road. The weather was clear and the ¡road was dry. But the road was rough and unpaved and had many 'curves and narrow places. They were proceeding down the mountainside, and were meeting two jeeps. There was a narrow place in the road about equally distant from the jeeps and defendant’s car. One of the plaintiffs warned defendant that there was a narrow place in the road and that he would be unable to pass the jeeps at the narrow point, and asked defendant to stop. Defendant did not heed the warn*783ing. The jeeps stopped one behind the other against the mountain at the narrow place in the road. Defendant continued forward and started around the jeeps. There was not room to pass. Defendant “cut” his car “off the road”; the earth began to “crumble” at the edge of the bank, he gave “it a lot of gas” and “tried to come back in against the jeep” but there wasn’t enough room; and the oar went off the bank, down the mountainside, turned over three or four times, landed on “some big rocks” and lodged against a tree. Plaintiffs were injured.

Defendant offered no evidence. The jury found that plaintiffs were injured by reason of defendant’s negligence and awarded damages in each case. From judgments in conformity with the verdicts defendant appeals.

*James S. Howell for plaintiffs.*

*Homer & Gilbert for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The court in its discretion consolidated the five cases for trial. In this no prejudicial error appears. “A discretionary order consolidating actions for trial will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of injury or prejudice to the appealing party.” 4 Strong: N. C. Index, Trial, s. 8, p. 294. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for nonsuit, and defendant’s exceptions to the admission of evidence are not sustained. Considered contextually the charge is adequate. A new trial will not be awarded for mere technical error when it appears that the jury could not have been misled thereby.

No error.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7699
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY MCCORMICK, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-39-H, CA-96-632-5-H) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: July 31, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal. We note that the record reveals no error of constitutional magnitude with regard to Appellant's counsel's decision not to argue that Appellant was entitled to be sentenced for distribution of powdered cocaine as opposed to crack cocaine. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE v. JESSUP

No. 21 PC.

Case below: 10 N. C. App. 503.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 6 April 1971.
Case 1:07-cv-03295-JFK Document 26-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03295-JFK Document 26-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03295-JFK Document 26-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03295-JFK Document 26-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03295-JFK Document 26-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### IN RE BENFIELD

No. 153 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 185.

Petition by Ethel Benfield for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03312-PAC Document 7-5 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 1
/ 

U.S. Department of Labor 

February 27, 1996 

Employment Standards Administration 

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 

Division of Longshore and 

Hdrbor Workers' Compensation 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Notice No, 80 

NOTICE TO INSURANCE CARRIERS AND SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS UNDER THE 

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, AND OTHER 

INTERESTED PERSONS 

SUBJECT: Realignment of District Office Boundaries 

Effective April 1, 1996, jurisdiction for the State of 

Mississippi for claims filed under the Longshore and Harbor 

Workers' Compensation Act and its extensions, the Defense Base 

Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the 

Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act, is being transferred 

from District 6 with headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida to 

District 7 with headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana. This 

realignment of district office boundaries is being made in 

accordance with 20 CFR 702.102(a) (see 60 FR 51346 dated 

October 2, 1995). 

This transfer does not affect any claim in which the case is 

currently being administered by the Jacksonville district office. 

Those claims will continue to be administered by the Jacksonville 

district office. On and after April 1, 1996, all new cases, 

including those involving an occupational disease, occurring in 

the State of Mississippi are to be reported to the New Orleans 

district office at the following address: 

District Director 

OWCP/DLHWC 

U.S. Department of Labor 

701 Loyola Avenue, Room 13032 

New Orleans, LA 70113 

This jurisdictional change is being made to provide a more evenly 

balanced distribution of workload between the Jacksonville and 

New Orleans district offices and reduce costs associated with the 

adjudication of these cases. It should also facilitate the 

processing of claims for Mississippi employers by providing 

greater convenience of location to the servicing district office. 

s p • 

Di ector, of 

Longshore and Harbor 

Workers' Compensation 

Working for America's Workforce
U.S. Department of Labor 

June 27, 1988 

Employment Sta.ndards Administration ADM 8-5 • 3 • 

O!fice of Workers· Compensation ProgramsX COM-L 9-1 

Division of Longshore and 

Harbor Workers· Compensation 

Washington. D.C. 20210 

No. 66 

NOTICE TO INSURANCE CARRIERS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS UNDER THE 

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, AND OTHER 

INTERESTED PERSONS 

SUBJECT: Transfer of the Administration of the District of 

Columbia Workmen's Comp'ensation Act of 1928 (DCCA) to 

the District of Columbia Government 

This is to advise that the functions related to the administration of the DCCA as it pertains to injuries or illnesses 

sustained as a result of employment prior to July 26, 1982, is 

being transferred from the Office of Workers' Compensation 

Programs (OWCP), U.S. Department of Labor, to the District of 

Columbia Government, Department of Employment Services. It is 

expected that this transfer, including the physical transfer of 

cases, will be completed by July 31, 1988. 

Under the provisions of 20 C.F.R. 702.102(b), the Director of 

OWCP will designate the D.C. Department of Employment Services' 

Deputy Director for Labor Standards as deputy commissioner 

responsible for administration of the DCCA. 

This transfer of function does not affect any statutory or 

regulatory authority specifically vested in the Secretary of 

Labor or the Director, OWCP. Therefore, the Department of 

Employment Services will administer the DCCA up to the level of 

fbrmal hearings. However, since this transfer does not affect 

the appeal rights of DCCA claimants, all formal hearings and 

appeals will continue to be handled by the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges and the Benefits 

Review Board, respectively. Cases currently with those agencies 

will continue to be processed as usual. 

Further, all fiduciary responsibilities of the Special Fund, 

including assessments, will remain with the U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

As cases are actually transferred to the Department of Employment 

Services, a specific notice of transfer will be sent to the 

claimant. Unless otherwise advised, as of July 18, 1988, any 

claim or correspondence concerning a work-related i·1jury or 
illness under the DCCA should be addressed to: 

Deputy Commissioner, DCCA 

Department of Employment Services 

1200 Upshur Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20011 

Telephone: (202) 576-6265 

Questions on the general effect of this transfer should be sent 

to the Associate Director, DLHWC, Office of Workers' Compensation 

Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210. 

1/ 

, H 

/ Associate Director, 

Longshore and Harbor 

Workers' Compensation
Filed: December 17, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7075

(CR-94-212, CA-97-687-6)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Orienthia Jerome McDowell,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed December 3, 1998, as

follows:

On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the district court information is corrected to read “Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-212, CA-97-687-6).”

On page 2, line 8 of the opinion -- the line is corrected to

begin M.D.N.C.

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ORIENTHIA JEROME MCDOWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-94-212, CA-97-687-6)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orienthia Jerome McDowell, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Orienthia Jerome McDowell seeks to appeal the district ourt’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. McDowell, Nos. CR-94-212; CA-97-687-6

(M.D.N.C. May 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER>  1

       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                          35,400
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                  262,700
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                367,500
<PP&E>                        1,251,600
<DEPRECIATION>                  576,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,276,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           836,100
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         75,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,276,000
<SALES>                        1,871,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1,871,900
<CGS>                          1,504,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  1,973,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                47,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (142,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (14,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (157,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (157,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        




</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 69165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22526]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy; 
Meeting Notice

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy.

    Date, time, place: November 29, 2005; 3-5 p.m.; Lincoln Room of 
the White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Purpose: The meeting will include a review and discussion of 
current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. 
negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and 
anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to 19 
U.S.C. 2155(f) it has been determined that the meeting will be 
concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining 
positions. Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public. 
See section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 
app., and section (c)(9)(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Schoepfle, Acting Director, 
Office of International Economic Affairs; Phone: (202) 693-4887.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of November 2005.
Martha Newton,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary, International Labor Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-22526 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-28-P
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sandra W. Callahan, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TECO Energy, Inc.;
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                         
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 4, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ S.W. CALLAHAN                                                       
|                    |  |  |  | S.W. CALLAHAN                                                           
|                    |  |  |  | Senior Vice President-Finance and Accounting and Chief Financial Officer
|                    |  |  |  | (Chief Accounting Officer)                                              
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)