alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet as of December 31, 1996 and the statement of earnings for
the year ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          35,898
<SECURITIES>                                    30,901
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,166
<PP&E>                                           8,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,613
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,491
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Application of Max Albert, as President of ' Sheepskin Leather Coats and Overall Workers Union, Local No. 178, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, an Unincorporated Association Consisting of Seven or More Members, to Confirm the Award Made under the Arbitration Clause in a Written Agreement between the Sheepskin Leather Coats and Overall Workers Union, Local 178, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and Alex Cohen, Doing Business as American Sportswear Manufacturing Company.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 18, 1936.

*238
      *David M. Schlossberg,*for the petitioner.

*Nathan Friedman,*for the respondent.

McLaughlin (Charles B.), J.

After a bitter contest as to duty to arbitrate, the parties finally went to arbitration and an award was made. The award orders the respondent to pay a certain sum of money, forty-eight dollars. As to that there is no relief asked. The contract is one whereby the defendant agreed to employ only union labor. The award orders respondent to live up to the contract. Respondent says that the judgment of the court will take the form of a mandatory injunction and that such a judgment cannot be founded on facts found by arbitration. That is not the rule to be followed. *Susquehanna S. S. Co.*v. *Andersen & Co.*(239 N. Y. 285) disposes of that contention. It was there shown that a tribunal wholly without equity power could fix the facts, so that a court of equity would have nothing to do but decide whether equitable relief should be granted. The arbitrator here does not grant an injunction. This court does, updn facts found by a tribunal without equity jurisdiction. The court accepts these facts and grants the relief. The award also directs the respondent to pay the sum of fifteen dollars for medical expenses of an employee whom (the arbitrator found) the employer assaulted. The ground seems to be that the employee is not a party to this proceeding and, therefore, not bound by the *res adjudicata.*In these collective agreements the members of the associations cannot plead that they are not parties. They appoint the association to make the bargain for them. *Qui facit per alium facit per se.*The employee is bound by this decision. The respondent’s objection is overruled.

The award is confirmed. Let judgment be entered in accordance with the award. To show indubitably that this court grants the injunction, and not the arbitrator, settle the judgment for signature by the court.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2075

To expand Federal employee commuting options and to reduce the traffic

congestion resulting from current Federal employee commuting patterns,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 22, 2000

Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To expand Federal employee commuting options and to reduce the traffic congestion resulting from current Federal employee commuting patterns, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IN NATIONAL CAP4 ITAL REGION.

5 The Executive Draft on Federal Transportation in

6 the National Capital Region which has been submitted to

7 the Office of Management and Budget by the Secretary
2

S 2075 IS

1 of Transportation shall take effect on the date of enact2 ment of this Act.

3 SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

4 Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment

5 of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit

6 to Congress a report on the implementation of Executive

7 Draft referred to in section 1.

Æ
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 216

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on

the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative minimum tax.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. JEFFORDS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the limitation on the use of foreign tax credits under

the alternative minimum tax.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FOREIGN TAX

4 CREDIT UNDER ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 59(a) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax

7 foreign tax credit) is amended by striking paragraph (2)

8 and by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as para9 graphs (2) and (3), respectively.
2

•S 216 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section

2 53(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of such Code is amended by striking

3 ‘‘and if section 59(a)(2) did not apply’’.

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

6 December 31, 1998.

Æ
S. 1967

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To make technical corrections to the status of certain land held in trust for the

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to take certain land into trust for that

Band, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATUS OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

(1) all land taken in trust by the United States for the

benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians on or after

December 23, 1944, shall be part of the Mississippi Choctaw

Indian Reservation;

(2) all land held in fee by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw

Indians located within the boundaries of the State of Mississippi, as shown in the report entitled ‘‘Report of Fee Lands

owned by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians’’, dated

September 28, 1999, on file in the Office of the Superintendent,

Choctaw Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the

Interior, is hereby declared to be held by the United States

in trust for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw

Indians; and

(3) land made part of the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Reservation after December 23, 1944, shall not be considered to

be part of the ‘‘initial reservation’’ of the tribe for the purposes

of section 20(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

(25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii)).
S. 1967—2

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to alter the application or the requirements of the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) with respect to

any lands held by or for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of

Choctaw Indians regardless of when such lands were acquired.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,599,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,599,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,599,071
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (46,264)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


             CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
NetObjects, Inc. and subsidiary:

The audits  referred  to in our report  dated  November  5, 1999,  included  the
related financial  statement  schedule as of September 30, 1999, and for each of
the years in the  three-year  period ended  September 30,  1999,as listed in the
Index  in  Item  14  (a)2  herein.  The  financial  statement  schedule  is  the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the financial  statement schedule based on our audit. In our opinion,
the  financial  statement  schedule,  when  considered  in relation to the basic
consolidated  financial  statements  taken as a  whole,  present  fairly  in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (No.
333-79669) on Form S-8 of NetObjects,  Inc and  subsidiary.  of our report dated
November,  5, 1999, which report appears in the September 30, 1999 annual report
on Form 10-K of NetObjects, Inc.


KPMG LLP
Mountain View, California
December 20, 1999
#### MILLER, et al., Respondents, *v.*MATHESON et al., Appellants.

(No. 1,562.)

(Submitted May 2, 1903.

Decided May 4, 1903.)

*Appeal*— *Denial of, Gontimumce*— Record — Insufficiency— *Review.*

Where there was nothing in the record to show that any motion for a continuance was made, heard or determined by the court, or that the court *133ever made an order continuing or refusing to continue the cause, an assignment that the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for a continuance could not be reviewed.

*Appeal from District Court, Teton, County; D. F. Smith, Judge.*

ActioN by O. A. Miller and A. O. Longmuir, co-partners and doing’ business under the firm name of Miller & Longmuir, against L. D. Matbeson and Isaac Morehouse, co-partners and doing business under the firm' name of L. D. Matbeson *&¿*Co. Fpom a judgment in favor of plaintiffs', defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

*Mr. Charles O’Donnell,*for Appellants.

*Mr. J. G. Bair,*and *Mr. II. S. Hepner,*for Respondents.

MR. JUSTICE MILBURN

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Tbis is an action by tbe plaintiffs to recover from tbe defendants tbe sum of $500. After issue bald been joined and tbe case set for trial, tbe defendants (appellants herein) served and filed tbe affidavit of Isaac Morehouse, one of tbe defendants, it being an affidavit for continuance of tbe cause. Tbe case was set to be tried on tbe 22d day of November*, 1899, and came on for trial on tbe following day, on which day tbe court gave and caused to be entered judgment for tbe plaintiffs, from which judgment tbis appeal is taken.

The only error assigned by appellants is that tbe court “erred in overruling defendants! motion for a continuance of tbe trial of said cause on the grounds of said motion being based on tbe affidavit of Isaac Morehouse.” There is not anything in the record to show! that any motion for a continuance was made, beard, or determined by tbe court. It does not appear that tbe court ever made any order continuing or refusing to continue tbe said cause. Therefore tbe judgment must be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2187 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2187

     To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron Scarlet LS-2G HC.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2000

Mr. Edwards (for himself and Mr. Helms) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron Scarlet LS-2G HC.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CIBACRON SCARLET LS-2G HC.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.32.00    Cibacron Scarlet  Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     LS-2G HC (CAS                                                           31/2002          ''
                     No. 152397-21-                                                                            .
                     2) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     3204.16.30)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

February 8, 2018

ERRATUM

______________________

Appeal No. 2016

- 1253

DIAMOND SAWBLADES MA NUFACTURERS COALITION, Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

v.

BEIJING GANG YAN DIAMOND PRODUCTS COMPANY, GANG YAN DIAMOND PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants

- Appellants

CLIFF INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant

Decided: August 7, 2017

Precedential Opinion

______________________DIAMOND SAWBLADES MA NUFACTURER v. UNITED STATES 2

Please make the following change:

On page 16, footnote 6, line 18, replace “CIT” with

“United States.”
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00598-CR

Craig Anthony Keeton

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 10

of Tarrant County (1306985)

September 18, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-41242

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUMBERTO LOMA-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-715-1

Before KING, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Humberto Loma-Perez (Loma) appeals from the 22-month non-guidelines

sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry.

Even if Loma preserved in the district court the errors he now alleges, he fails

to show that his sentence is unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). Contrary to Loma’s contention, it was not improper for the district

court to consider for sentencing purposes crimes that he committed in the 1990’s,

including auto larceny, simply because they were too old to contribute to his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 5, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-41242 Document: 00511285768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2010
No. 09-41242

guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, Loma’s argument that he

has overcome the alcoholism that caused him to commit crimes in the past

ignores that he committed, but was not prosecuted for, four other illegal

reentries between 1999 and 2008; the last two of these reentries, as well as the

instant count of conviction, were committed following his alleged sobriety.

Under these circumstances, Loma fails to show that the district court abused its

discretion by imposing a sentence above the guidelines range to protect the

public and to deter Loma from committing future crimes. See Gall, 552 U.S. at

51; § 3553(a).

The four-month upward variance from the guidelines range of 18 to 22

months of imprisonment is considerably less than other sentences that this court

has affirmed. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 n.5, 709-10 (5th Cir.

2006) (upholding variance from guidelines range maximum of 27 months to 60

months); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding

departure from guidelines range maximum of 41 months to 120 months).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-41242 Document: 00511285768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2010
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | New York |   | 22-1659359 |   |
|   | (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |   | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   | 560 N. Rogers Road, Olathe, KS |   | 66062 |   |
|   | (Address of principal executive offices) |   | (Zip code) |   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Yes x |   | No o |   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Yes x |   | No o |   |

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Large Accelerated Filer o |   | Accelerated Filer o |   | Non-accelerated Filer o |   | Smaller Reporting Company x |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Yes o |   | No x |   |

----

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| ITEM 6 | Exhibits |

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |  |
| Exhibit No. |   | Description of Exhibit |
|        |   |   |
| 10.1        |   | Limited Laboratory and Administrative Services Agreement dated April 16, 2014 by and between Hooper Holmes, Inc. and Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc.** |
|        |   |   |
| 31.1        |   | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. |
|        |   |   |
| 31.2        |   | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. |

|                       |
|-----------------------|
|                       |  |
|                  | Hooper Holmes, Inc. |
|                  |   |
| Dated:  June 23, 2014 | By: /s/ Tom Collins |
|                  | Tom Collins |
|                  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
FIRST AMENDMENT

                                       TO

                               ALLTEL CORPORATION

                             1991 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, the ALLTEL Corporation 1991 Stock Plan (the "Plan") provides
that it may be amended by the Board of Directors of ALLTEL Corporation; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of ALLTEL Corporation has determined
that an amendment to the Plan is advisable;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan hereby is amended, effective as of October 26,
2000, as follows:

         1.  Section 6 of the Plan hereby is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

                  6.  TRANSFERABILITY.

                  Except as provided in this Section 6, no option granted under
         this Plan may be sold, transferred, pledged, assigned, or otherwise
         alienated or hypothecated, other than by will or by the laws of descent
         and distribution or pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order,
         as defined by the Code, Title I of the Employee Retirement Income
         Security Act, or the rules thereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
         and subject to such conditions as the Committee may prescribe from time
         to time, the Committee may permit, during the lifetime of the holder of
         an option which is not an incentive stock option (as defined pursuant
         to Section 422 of the Code), the transfer or assignment of the option.
         The designation of a beneficiary with respect to an option shall not
         constitute a transfer for purposes of this Section 6."