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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                            526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   526
<CGS>                                              279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,579)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,579)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,579)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D18-418 & 3D20-1382 Lower Tribunal No. 15-25520

________________ 

### Castle Key Insurance Company,

Appellant,
vs. 

### Andre De Kosko and Marietta De Kosko,

Appellees. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodney Smith and Mavel Ruiz, Judges. Chimpoulis, Hunter & Lynn, P.A. (Plantation); Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., and Elizabeth K. Russo, for appellant. The Monfiston Firm, P.A., and Daniel L. Monfiston, for appellees. Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-7054 WILLIAM G. WILCOX,

Claimant-Appellant,
v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in

07-1874, Judge Donald L. Ivers. ON MOTION Before LINN Circuit Judge. ORDER Counsel for William G. Wilcox submits a motion "for appearance pro hac vice" and moves for an extension of time to file an entry of appearance, certificate of interest, docketing statement, and his brief. To become a member of the bar of this court, counsel should fill out the appropriate application and pay the admission fee. See Fed. Cir. R. 46. Admission pro hac vice is not appropriate. With respect to the extension motion, Wilcox has submitted the certificate of interest. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:The motion for appearance pro hac vice is denied. Counsel should apply

for membership with the bar of this court within 30 days.

The motion for an extension of time is granted. Wilcox's docketing statement and counsel's entry of appearance are due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order. Wilcox's brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT
MAY -1 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk 

# gittalikri
cc: Albert W.L. Moore, Jr., Esq. Ellen M. Lynch, Esq. s17 MAY I 2000 

# JAN HORLiALI CLERK

2009-7054 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at April 30, 1998 and the Statement of
Operations for the year ended April 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000880121
<NAME>                        Market America
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.000
<CASH>                                          18,379,127
<SECURITIES>                                    12,415,465
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,468,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,435,248
<PP&E>                                           1,249,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                     462,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,584,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,938,605
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               199
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,481,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,584,430
<SALES>                                         87,531,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,531,005
<CGS>                                           19,272,329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,272,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,917,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,783,209
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,942,669
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,840,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .54
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3351]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-514-000]


Northeast Utilities Service Company; Filing

February 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1995, Northeast Utilities Service 
Company (NUSCO), tendered for filing on behalf of The Connecticut Light 
and Power Company (CL&P), a Fourth Amendment to Capacity, Transmission 
and Energy Service Agreement with Green Mountain Power Corporation 
(GMP). The Amendment provides for changes necessary to accommodate 
GMP's termination of its contract with Rochester Gas and Electric.
    NUSCO requests that the rate schedule become effective on January 
31, 1995. NUSCO states that copies of the rate schedule have been 
mailed or delivered to the parties to the Fourth Amendment.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before February 17, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3351 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

October 2, 2018

s0924 

# Order

Clerk October 2, 2018

156924

CHERYLE DUFFY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 156924

COA: 333578

Oakland CC: 2015

- 148673

- NO

JOHN KINNAMON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2017

ju dgment 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.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

January 24, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00032-CR

NO. 14-13-00033-CR

IN RE BRANDON CAINES, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1274700 and 1274701

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On January 14, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Vanessa 
2

Velasquez, presiding judge of the 183rd District Court of Harris County to rule on 

his motion to obtain documents and trial records.

To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show 

that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he 

seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial 

decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 

236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). When a motion 

is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and 

resolving it is ministerial, not discretionary. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-

35 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 

This court is empowered to compel by writ of mandamus a district court to 

consider and rule on properly filed pending motions if (1) relator has asked the trial 

court to rule, and (2) the trial court either refused to rule or failed to rule within a 

reasonable time. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426, 427 (Tex.App.-

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); Von Kolb v. Koehler, 609 S.W.2d 654,

655-56 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1980, no writ). There is no bright-line rule 

establishing a reasonable time period. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d at 135. Some of 

the factors involved in the determination include the trial court's actual knowledge 

of the motion, any overt refusal to act on it, and the state of the trial court's docket. 

See id. (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.1979)). A relator has 

the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to 

mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (orig. 

proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7. 
3

In this case, the motions relator claims were filed in the trial court do not 

reflect a file-stamp from the 183rd District Court and therefore do not demonstrate 

the motions are actually pending in the trial court. Absent a showing the motions 

were filed and the trial court is aware of the motions, relator has not established his 

entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4669]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research (#1203).
    Date and Time: March 13-15, 1995; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Adriaan M. deGraaf, Executive Officer, 
Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 
(703) 306-182; FAX (703) 306-0515.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning the continued support for the National High Magnetic 
Field Laboratory (NHMFL) being established by Florida State 
University, the University of Florida, and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate the progress report and proposal 
for continued funding from the NHMFL.
    Reason for Closing: The progress report being reviewed includes 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposal. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 21, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-4669 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### STATE v. JAMES SHAW.

(Filed 7 May, 1941.)

Criminal Law § 80—

When defendant, convicted of a capital crime, is allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*but fails to make out and serve bis statement of case on appeal within the time allowed, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the Attorney-General and the judgment affirmed when the record is free from apparent error.

MotioN by State to docket ease, affirm judgment, and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

Stacy, C. J.

At the January-Eebruary Term, 1941, Columbus Superior Court, the defendant herein, James Shaw, was tried upon indictment charging him with the murder of one James Freeman, which resulted in a conviction of “first degree murder” and sentence of death as the law commands. From the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed 40 days within which to prepare and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given 25 days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or countercase.

The clerk certifies that “the time for perfecting appeal has expired and no case on appeal has been filed in this office.” In a letter to the Attorney-General he states that counsel for the defendant “has advised me that he does not intend to file case on appeal.” No bond was required as the defendant was allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis.*

As no error appears on the face of the record, the motion of the Attorney-General will be allowed. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Kenneth G. Myers, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Conrad Industries, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; 

 

b) [intentionally omitted]

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) 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: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2003.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning with those newly eligible in 2013, multiply the 90 and 32 PIA factors each year by 0.9925 and 0.982, respectively.  Stop reductions in 2050.  Beginning with those newly eligible in 2008, multiply the 15 factor by 0.982.  Stop reduction of the 15 factor in 2045.  DI will have present law scheduled benefit and proportional reduction at conversion to retired worker benefits at normal retirement age, based on years of disability. |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
#### W. SCOTT RADEKER v. ROYAL PINES PARK, INC., and MARGUERITTE JACKSON.

(Filed 10 October, 1934.)

Judgments K lb — It will be presumed on appeal that findings upon which judgment is set aside under G. S., 600, are supported by evidence.

Where no evidence appears in the case on appeal from an order setting-aside a judgment for surprise and excusable neglect under C. S., 600, it will be presumed that the findings of fact are based upon sufficient evidence in the absence of exceptions to the findings, and the order will be affirmed where the findings sustain the court’s holding that movants have *210shown excusable neglect and meritorious defense. As to whether the pleadings, judgment sought to be set aside, and the record incident thereto, and the motion and affidavit of movants may be treated as evidence, *qwmre?*

MotioN to set aside a judgment, beard before *Pless, J.,*at June Term, 1934, of Buncombe.

Affirmed.

Tbis was a motion made before tbe general county court of Buncombe by tbe defendant Royal Pines Park, Inc., and intervenors Louis M. Bourne, Haywood Parker and Jobn DuBose, under C. S., 600, to set aside a judgment by default final rendered in said court in tbe above entitled cause on 19 December, 1932. From judgment granting tbe motion tbe plaintiff appealed to tbe Superior Court, and from judgment there affirming tbe court below, appealed to tbis Court, assigning errors.

*Weaver & Miller for appellant.*

*Bourne, Parker, Bernard & DuBo'se for appellees.*

Pee CuRiam.

Tbe judge of tbe general county court of Buncombe, “after bearing evidence for plaintiff and movants, and .argument of counsel,” found tbe facts, and upon tbe facts so found held, “in its discretion and as a matter of law, . . . that tbe movants have shown excusable neglect and a meritorious defense,” and adjudged that tbe default judgment and tbe proceedings pursuant thereto', be “declared null and void and set aside.”

No evidence appears in tbe case on appeal, unless tbe pleadings, tbe judgment sought to be set aside and tbe record incident thereto, and tbe motion and affidavit of tbe movants be treated as evidence. If these be so treated, they furnish sufficient basis for tbe findings of fact. If they be not so treated, then, in tbe absence of tbe evidence from tbe case on appeal, tbe findings of fact are presumed to be based upon sufficient evidence. And withal there are no exceptions to tbe findings of facts. These findings are final and binding upon tbis Court.

Tbe findings of fact fully sustain bis Honor’s bolding that tbe movants have shown excusable neglect and meritorious defense. In no view of tbe case, therefore, should tbe judgment be reversed. *Abbitt v. Gregory,*195 N. C., 203; *Bank v. Duke,*187 N. C., 386; *Weil v. Woodard,*104 N. C., 94.

Affirmed.
Order entered January 3, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00362-CV

NINA D. WHITE, Appellant

V.

GUADALUPE PADILLA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-08917

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 30, 2016 motion to extend time to file her 

amended brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief shall be filed by January 25, 

2017.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE