alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DONALD JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00259-RS-GRJ

REYNALDO GEERKEN, 

et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File An

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff requests a thirty day extension of time to file

an amended complaint. On November 9, 2010 the Court entered its Order directing

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the civil rights complaint form by November 29,

2010. Plaintiff advises that he requires additional time to research and prepare the

amended complaint.

Accordingly, upon due consideration it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 18)

is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint by December 29, 2010.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22 day of November 2010. 

nd

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-579

In Re: JAMES VASSELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-11-2)

Submitted: March 10, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Vassell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

By this application for a writ of mandamus, James Vassell

seeks an order of this court directing the district court to hear

and decide his currently pending 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998) motion. The motion has been briefed since December 18,

1995, without resolution. Because of the nature of the action

pending before the district court, this court ordered a response to

Vassell’s petition. A response was filed, see Fed. R. App. P. 21,

and the matter is now ripe for adjudication.

While the district court does not explain the delay in resolving Vassell’s petition, the court, in its response, made

assurances that the motion would be acted upon before the end of

May 1998. Thus, the district court contends that granting the

petition for a writ of mandamus is unnecessary. We agree.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be granted in

extraordinary situations. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th

Cir. 1987). Vassell must demonstrate that he has no other avenue

for relief and that his right to relief is clear and indisputable.

See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989).

In this case, Vassell fails to meet his burden, because the district court has clearly indicated that the motion will be resolved

forthwith. The response of the district court demonstrates that

Vassell has other avenues of relief available. Therefore, granting

the petition for mandamus would be inappropriate, as the district
3

court’s assurances accomplish substantially everything that this

court would have directed.

Accordingly, we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and deny Vassell’s petition for a writ of mandamus without

prejudice. If Vassell encounters additional, significant delay, he

may apply again for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EX-10.9





 Exhibit 10.9 

ADDENDUM #12 TO THE 

CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN

 CITADEL MANAGEMENT BERMUDA LIMITED (“MANAGER”) 

(formerly Cedar Management Limited) 

AND 
 AMERINST INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD. (“COMPANY”) 
 EFFECTIVE: January 1, 2020 

Management Agreement Addendum 
  

	 	1)	 It is hereby agreed that the COMPANY will compensate MANAGER at a rate of $350,000 for the twelve months
beginning 1/1/20 and ending 12/31/20, which shall be inclusive of all work by MANAGER on run-off of CAMICO and PDIC treaties as well as continuing business from Crum & Forster. 



 

	 	2)	 Cause the above fee to be paid in quarterly installments in advance at the beginning of each calendar quarter.



  

	 	3)	 Reimburse MANAGER for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the management of the COMPANY
including; courier and express mail service; long distance telephone calls; travel and meeting expenses incurred at the request of the COMPANY; costs of COMPANY stationery; filing fees; and similar expenses. 



 

	 	4)	 MANAGER will continue to provide COMPANY with monthly time summaries. 



COMPANY agrees that special projects will be invoiced separately at agreed upon fees or rates. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Addendum this 20th day of February, 2020. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/  THOMAS R. MCMAHON

		 	Citadel Management Bermuda Limited (itself and on behalf of its affiliated companies)


  

			
	By:	 	 /s/  DAVID R. KLUNK

		 	AmerInst Insurance Company, Ltd.
#### ROBERTSON v. CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 6 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 335.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 March 1980.
#### TRUST CO. v. MARTIN

No. 2 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 261.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980. Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KEVIN M. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv304/RS-MD

B. GORDAN, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion Of Changes/To Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 29) is denied as

moot. Plaintiff is advised that he can pursue a claim in habeas corpus only after

exhausting his state court remedies. 

ORDERED on December 28, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP  -GRJ   Document 64    Filed 12/07/10   Page 1 of 6

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP  -GRJ   Document 64    Filed 12/07/10   Page 2 of 6

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP  -GRJ   Document 64    Filed 12/07/10   Page 3 of 6

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP  -GRJ   Document 64    Filed 12/07/10   Page 4 of 6

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP  -GRJ   Document 64    Filed 12/07/10   Page 5 of 6

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP  -GRJ   Document 64    Filed 12/07/10   Page 6 of 6
#### STATE v. KEE

No. 374P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 372.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 August 1982. Motion by defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 August 1982.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service

          - 50 CFR Part 32

      ( print page 11792)    

### CFR Correction

                    In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 18 to 199, revised as of October 1, 2006, on page 302, § 32.42 is corrected by reinstating the heading “Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge” in the first column before paragraph                     *A.*

[FR Doc. 07-55501 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
# C_2010052EN.01000401.xml

| 2.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

1 March 2010

2010/C 52/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3525 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4427 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90670 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7649 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4644 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0570 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,933 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,45 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9400 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1110 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0879 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5105 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4266 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5007 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9442 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9026 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 562,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,3907 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2326 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2568 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 519,70 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5775 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,379 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,5471 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,474 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4471 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2478 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,4110 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3525

JPY

Japanese yen

120,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4427

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90670

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7649

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4644

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0570

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,933

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,45

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9400

RON

Romanian leu

4,1110

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0879

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5105

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4266

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5007

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9442

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9026

KRW

South Korean won

1 562,24

ZAR

South African rand

10,3907

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2326

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2568

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 519,70

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5775

PHP

Philippine peso

62,379

RUB

Russian rouble

40,5471

THB

Thai baht

44,474

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4471

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2478

INR

Indian rupee

62,4110

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(a)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: August 13, 2004







By   _/s/ Richard R. Walters



Richard R. Walters, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE v. HUNNICUTT

No. 26 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 531.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JACKIE MICHAEL BELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00176-MP-AK

LISA ECHEVERRI, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Previously, this Court entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation and

dismissing the Amended Complaint. Subsequent to that order, the Plaintiff filed a motion for

extension of time, claiming that he had not received the Report and Recommendation. The Court

vacated the order adopting the Report and Recommendation and allowed Plaintiff to file an

objection to the Report and Recommendation. Instead of filing an objection, however, Plaintiff

moved to file an amended complaint. 

In the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff more fully explains the arguments he made

earlier - that Florida's child support debt collection system is criminal in nature but governed by

civil procedure; and that allowing the state to require him to pay child support while

simultaneously denying him visitation or custody of the children violates due process. 

Having reviewed the proposed complaint, the Court concludes that even if all factual

allegations of the complaint were proven, Plaintiff still fails to allege how this violates any right 
Page 2 of 2

guaranteed by federal statutory or constitutional law. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion to amend, Doc. 12, is denied as amendment would be futile. The

motion at Doc. 15 to serve the complaint is therefore also denied.

2. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

3. This case is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:09-cv-00176-MP-AK
# C_2009229EN.01002701.xml

| 23.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 September 2009

2009/C 229/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4780 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4422 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0940 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5149 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6280 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,131 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,42 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7055 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1613 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1882 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6922 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5787 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,4552 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0484 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0863 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 779,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,9943 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0902 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2943 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 316,85 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,1434 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,238 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,5532 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,687 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6726 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,6500 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,8900 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4780

JPY

Japanese yen

135,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4422

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90470

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0940

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5149

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6280

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,131

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,42

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7055

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1613

RON

Romanian leu

4,2475

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1882

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6922

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5787

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,4552

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0484

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0863

KRW

South Korean won

1 779,06

ZAR

South African rand

10,9943

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0902

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2943

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 316,85

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,1434

PHP

Philippine peso

70,238

RUB

Russian rouble

44,5532

THB

Thai baht

49,687

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6726

MXN

Mexican peso

19,6500

INR

Indian rupee

70,8900

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Chuck
      Enze


Employment
      Arrangements




Since
      June 1, 2006, TXU Corp. (the “Company”) has employed Chuck Enze as Chief
      Executive Officer, Construction on an at-will employee basis. The Company pays
      Mr. Enze an annual salary equal to $550,000, and Mr. Enze is eligible
      to participate in all compensation and benefit plans of the Company in which
      similarly situated executives are eligible to participate, which currently
      include the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. 2005
      Omnibus Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. Salary Deferral Plan, the TXU Executive
      Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical Examination Program, the
      TXU Second Supplemental Retirement Plan, the TXU Corp. Executive Change in
      Control Policy and the TXU Corp. 2005 Executive Severance Plan. Assuming Mr.
      Enze is employed with the Company on the date 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 awards
      are granted, respectively, pursuant to the 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the
      award to be granted to Mr. Enze for each year will have a face value equal
      to
      not less than $400,000, based on the share price of the Company’s common stock
      at the time of grant.




In
      addition, Mr. Enze is entitled to a supplemental benefit, in the form of a
      single lump sum, equal to $3,100,000, which amount will be reduced by the value
      of the Company pension payable to Mr. Enze under the TXU Retirement Plan and
      the
      Second Supplemental Retirement Plan earned by Mr. Enze up to the age of 60.
      The
      supplemental benefit will be paid upon the earlier to occur of Mr. Enze’s
      separation of service from the Company or his death.
# C_2010046EN.01000501.xml

| 24.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5637 — TPG/IMS Health)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 46/03

On 2 February 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5637. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5637. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Patrick D. Spangler, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Form 10-K of Epocrates, 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;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 31, 2011

/s/ PATRICK D. SPANGLER Patrick D. Spangler Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard L. Seech :

:

v. : No. 1417 C.D. 2017

:

Gateway School District, :

Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, January 25, 2021, having considered Appellee’s application for

reargument, the application is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF  CERRITOS HOLDINGS INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE
RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### LANGDON v. POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 68 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 227.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1979.