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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF ENHANCE FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC. AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,558
<SECURITIES>                                 1,078,002
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,453,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,001
<OTHER-SE>                                     730,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,453,932
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,584
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,156
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,989)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                       820
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,624
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (0)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (0)
<CHANGES>                                          (0)
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,624
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.76


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND 1996 AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (403)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,835
<PP&E>                                          13,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,423)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,364
<SALES>                                         52,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,541
<CGS>                                           47,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    49
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   403
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,866)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3544

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2771

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          19,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,372
<PP&E>                                       1,388,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                 575,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,849
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   848,587
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,801
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,279
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### JIM WATSON v. SYLVA TANNING COMPANY.

(Filed 31 December, 1926.)

1. Evidence — Trials—Appeal and Error.

Evidence erroneously admitted on direct examination is not reversible error when again brought out on cross-examination, or evidence of the same character is admitted without objection from the appellant.

2. Negligence — Master and Servant — Employer and Employee — Reasonable Care — Safe Place to Work.

It is the duty of the employer to furnish his employee in the exercise of reasonable care, a safe place to work, etc., in the course of his employment.

Appeal from *Oglesby, J.,*and a jury, at February Term, 1926, of JacksoN. No error.

*Walter F. Moore and Sutton & Stillwell for plaintiff.*

*Alley & Alley for defendant.*

Clarkson, J.

This case was here before on appeal by defendant and a new trial awarded on account of error in the court below for failure to comply with C. S., 564. See 190 N. C., p. 840.

In the present appeal, assignments of error are in regard to erroneous admission of evidence. We think the evidence was not prejudicial, from the cross-examination and other evidence of similar import brought out and introduced by defendant, and the case of *Cook v. Mebane,*191 N. C., p. 7, and *Hanes v. Utilities Co., ibid.,*p. 19, and cases cited, approbate.

*791Another contention of defendant is that the charge of the court below makes it the duty of the employer, in the exercise of ordinary care, to furnish the employee a *safe place*to work, and that this is error; that the place must be *reasonably safe*and not *safe,*we cannot so hold. The court charged as follows: “The court further charges it is the duty of the master to use reasonable care and prudence in providing a safe place for his servant to work, and reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to do and perform his work.”

As to the degree of care that the employer owes his employee, we think the charge sustained by *Riggs v. Mfg. Co.,*190 N. C., p. 258. This Court said: “It is well settled in this State That an employer of labor in the exercise of reasonable care, must provide for his employees a safe place to do their work and supply them with machinery, implements and appliances, safe and suitable for the work in which they are engaged, and to keep such implements, etc., in safe condition as far as this can be done by the exercise of proper care and supervision/ ” citing numerous authorities. Some of the decisions use the words “safe place” or “reasonably safe place” and “safe appliances, tools,” etc., or “reasonably safe appliances, tools,” etc., but this it not the error. All the cases hold that these duties must be complied with in the exercise of reasonable or ordinary care, or in the use of ordinary care and prudence; “such care as a prudent man would exercise under similar circumstances.” The error, as held in all the decisions, is the omission of this qualifying phrase. *Lindsey v. Lumber Co.,*190 N. C., 844; *Clinard v. Electric Co., ante,*736.

From a perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that the action was carefully tried by the court below and in law we can find

No error.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICKEY R. CASTILLO,

Petitioner

v.

MATTHEW P. KELLY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen Nagel, President and Director of Kolorfusion International, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

        (1)  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
             quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
             Exchange Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the
             requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
             Act of 1934; (fifteen U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)) and

        (2)  information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
             indicated.

Date: May 4, 2004                       /s/ Stephen Nagel
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Stephen Nagel
                                        President, Director


         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
18U.S.C. SS 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as
separate disclosure documents. A signed original of this written statement has
been provided to Kolorfusion International, Inc. and will be retained by
Kolorfusion International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2133

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 31.2
                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, John F. Foley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salisbury Bancorp,
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:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
            supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

      c)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

      c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'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 over financial reporting; and

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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a)    all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the 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 involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2004


By: /s/ John F. Foley
    ---------------------
    Chief Financial Officer


                                       26
#### STATE v. NORMAN LEE MINTZ; and STATE v. WILLIAM FLOYD BALLINGTON.

(Filed 19 October, 1955.)

Crime Against Nature § 2: Criminal Law §§ 11, 62a—

An attempt to commit tbe offense defined by G.S. 14-177 is an infamous act within the meaning of G.S. 14-3, and therefore sentence to the State’s prison is within the limitations permitted by law.

Appeal by defendants from *Moore (Clifton LJ, J.,*August Term 1955, New Hanover.

Two criminal prosecutions under bill of indictment which charges that the defendants did feloniously commit the crime against nature.

The two causes were consolidated for trial, and the court submitted the evidence to the jury on the issue only of attempt to commit the crime against nature. There was a verdict of guilty as to each defendant.

From judgments pronounced on the verdicts the defendants appealed.

*762*Attorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*Aaron Goldberg and Rountree & Rountree for appellant Mintz.*

*W. Jack F. Canady for appellant Ballington.*

PeR CuRiam.

G.S. 14-177 defines the crime against nature as an “abominable and detestable” crime, and we held in & *v. Spivey,*213 N.C. 45, 195 S.E. 1, that an attempt to commit the crime thus defined is an infamous act within the meaning of G.S. 14-3. We still adhere to that decision. Hence the sentence imposed in the court below was within the limitations permitted by law.

The other exceptive assignments of error present no substantial question which requires discussion. They fail to point out prejudicial error. Therefore, in .the trial below we find

No error.
The EcoTech Marine, LLC Section 301 exclusion filing 

**VorTech MP60**8501312000		brushless DC motor between 37.5w and 74.6w

Description.

Part Number 10302

Voltage: 32 VDC

# image1.png
<PAGE>








                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-54398, 333-07515, 333-43547, 333-56697, 333-32118 and 333-62714 on Form
S-8 and No. 333-96369 on Form S-3 of Metretek Technologies, Inc. (f.k.a. Marcum
Natural Gas Services, Inc.) of our report dated March 27, 2003 (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph as to
the adoption in 2002 of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142,
"Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" as well as the change in accounting for
contracts from the completed-contract method to the percentage-of-completion
method)  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Metretek
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 27, 2003



                                       1
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4297 

To repeal the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2022 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

LUJA ́N, Mr. THUNE, and Ms. HASSAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 

2018. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Elimination of the VA 

5 Asset and Infrastructure Review (AIR) Commission Act 

6 of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4297 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF ASSET AND INFRASTRUCTURE RE2 VIEW COMMISSION OF DEPARTMENT OF VET3 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 The VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018 

5 (subtitle A of title II of Public Law 115–182; 38 U.S.C. 

6 8122 note) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803%5$&.(7&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*67$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267