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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     15,314,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    132,511,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           11,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                37,180,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     65,109,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       65,861,000
<LOANS>                                   122,784,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                (2,125,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            221,505,000
<DEPOSITS>                                190,076,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         1,207,000
<LONG-TERM>                                12,000,000
<COMMON>                                    9,585,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  8,637,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            221,505,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            11,448,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           4,286,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              226,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           15,960,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          4,121,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5,118,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      10,842,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 (11,000)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            101,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             8,453,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,987,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    851,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                2,136,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   8.97
<LOANS-NON>                                    23,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            1,754,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  24,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   35,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           2,125,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        2,125,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


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


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-3-1999
<CASH>                                           1,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                       323
<INVENTORY>                                     45,072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,482
<PP&E>                                         106,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,352
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                   (126,717)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,646
<SALES>                                        317,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               317,896
<CGS>                                          300,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  300,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,497)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,486)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (617)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,103)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.75)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14304-14305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6498]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on 
March 8, 1995, a proposed Second Modified Consent Decree in United 
States of America v. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts, Civil Action 
No. 87-2497-T, was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
District of Massachusetts. The United States' complaint sought relief 
under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. The Second Modified 
Consent Decree revises the existing Modified Consent Decree entered by 
the Court in 1990. The Second Modified Consent Decree provides for an 
extension in the deadline for completion of construction of secondary 
treatment facilities from May 1, 1995 to August 22, 1996, and 
[[Page 14305]] requires the payment of $51,000 in stipulated penalties 
to the United States. It also provides for a revised sludge disposition 
approach by the City, under which the City is required to enter into 
primary long term and backup contracts for disposition of its sludge 
residuals and to maintain the design and permits for a backup residuals 
landfill which it is to construct in the event of difficulties with 
contractual disposition.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date 
of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts, D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-2823.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 1003 J.W. McCormack P.O. & Courthouse, Boston, 
Massachusetts 02109, and at the Region I office of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, One Congress St., Boston, Massachusetts 02203. The 
proposed consent decree may also be examined at the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G. St., NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-624-
0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G. St., NW., 4th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $16.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) 
payable to the ``Consent Decree Library.''
Joel Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-6498 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
S UPERIOR C OURT

OF THE S TATE OF D ELAWARE

J OHN A. P ARKINS , J R

. N EW C ASTLE C OUNTY C OURTHOUSE J UDGE 500 N ORTH K ING S TREET , S UITE 10400
W ILMINGTON , D ELAWARE 19801

- 3733

T ELEPHONE : (302) 255

- 2584

May 11 , 2016

Richard Galperin, Esquire
Joshua H. Me yeroff

, Esquire
Morris James L LP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
P.O. Box 2306 Wilmington, Delaware 19899

- 2306

Re: Alissa Porter

v. Christiana Care Health Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation , et al
C.A. No. N16C

- 02

- 231 JAP

De ar Counsel:

Presently before the court are requests from some of the defendants to

determine whether the Affidavit of Merit filed by Plaintiff satisfies 18 Del. C.

§ 6853. The court has done so and finds that the affidavit satisfies the

requirements fou nd in section 6853.

I n their requests to review the Affidavit of Merit the defendants ask the

court to determine if the “Affidavit of Merit states all its opinions with

reasonable medical probability.” The affiant expresses his opinions to a

reasonable de gree of medical probability. The court takes this occasion to

note that this may be greater than the standard required by section 6853.

Nowhere does the statute require that opinions in Affidavits of Merit be2

expressed to a reasonable degree of medical p robability. All that is requir ed

is that a qualified expert attest “ that there are reasonable grounds to believe

that the applicable standard of care was breached by the named defendant

or defendants and that the breach was a proximate cause of injury or

injuries claimed in the complaint .” 18 Del. C. § 6853(c). It seems to the

court that the “reasonable grounds to believe” specified in the statute is not

as stringent as “reasonable degree of medical probability.” The court is

aware, of course, that expe rt trial testimony must meet the reasonable

degree

- of

- medical

- probability standard. But the purpose of affidavit of merit

requirement of section 6853 is to screen frivolous medical negligence claims.

That limited purpose does not require the same degree o f reliability required

of trial testimony. As the Supreme Court has written:

This Section requires that a qualified medical professional review a plaintiff's claim, to determine and then to state that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the healt h care provider breached the applicable standard of care that caused the injuries claimed in the complaint. Medical experts need not couch their opinions in legal terms, state the facts that underly their determination, or to articulate the
standard of car e with a high degree of legal precision or “magic words .”

Dishmon v. Fucci

, 32 A.3d 338 , 344 (Del. 2011) (internal footnotes omitted.)

Very truly yours,

John A. Parkins, Jr.

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Robert J. Leoni , Esquire, Shelsby & Leoni

, Wilmington, Delaware
Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationA-Mark Precious Metals, Inc.
(80% owned)
    
    New YorkCollateral Finance Corporation, Inc.
    
    DelawareA-Mark Trading A.G.
    
    AustriaBowers and Merena Auctions LLC
    
    DelawareSpectrum Numismatics International, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaTeletrade, Inc.
    
    DelawareGreg Martin Auctions, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaH.R. Harmer Nutmeg Auctions, Inc.
    
    DelawareSpectrum Wine Auctions, LLC
    
    CaliforniaCorinphila Auktionen AG
    
    SwitzerlandCorinphila Veilingen BV
    
    The NetherlandsHeinrich Kohler AuktionshausGmbH & Co. KG
    
    GermanyHeinrich Kohler Briefmarkenhandel, GmbH & Co. KG
    
    GermanyJohn Bull Stamp Auctions, Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4588

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Order entered June 9, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00238-CV

EVELYN JOYCE ARTERBERRY, ET AL., Appellants

V.

WILLOWTAX, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01621

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s June 7, 2021 unopposed motion for an 

extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and 

extend the time to June 28, 2021.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-38242 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 33-65330, No 33-80043, No.
333-38210 and No. 333-38214 on Forms S-8 of Ener1, Inc. ("the Company"), Inc. of
our report dated  February  28, 2003,  (which  report  expresses an  unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to substantial doubt about
the  Company's  ability to continue as a going  concern)  which  appears in this
annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1,  Inc.,  for the year ended  December 31,
2002.



                                                           KAUFMAN, ROSSIN & CO.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 25, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00472

- CV

R. F., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFOR E CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal in the

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It FURTHER appearing to the Court that

appellant has filed an af

fidavit of inability to pay costs, it is FURTHER ordered that no costs of

appeal be assessed against appellant; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4006

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                         Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
General Growth Properties, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-11067, 333-15907, 333-17021, 333-23035, 333-37247, 333-37383,
333-41603, 333-58045, 333-68505, 333-76379, 333-76757, 333-82569, 333-84419,
333-88813, 333-88819, 333-82134 and 333-91621) on Form S-3 and the registration
statements (Nos. 33-79372, 333-07241, 333-11237, 333-28449, 333-74461 and
333-79737) on Form S-8 of General Growth Properties, Inc. of our report dated
January 30, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of GGP/Homart,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for the year then ended, and our report dated January 30, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheet of GGP/Homart II L.L.C. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income, members' equity and cash flows for the year
then ended, which reports appear in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form
10-K of General Growth Properties, Inc.

Our reports refer to a change in the method of accounting for derivative
instruments and hedging activities in 2001.

KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 14, 2002

                                      S-9
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                          CUMBERLAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                    Year Ended December 31,
                                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 1999                   1998                    1997
                                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>                      <C>                     <C>

Average shares outstanding ...................................              5,475,613              5,447,966               5,449,518
Dilutive stock options .......................................                134,500                      -                 189,086
                                                                           ----------             ----------              ----------
Totals .......................................................              5,610,113              5,447,966               5,638,604
                                                                           ==========             ==========              ==========
Net income (loss) ............................................              1,148,070               (321,409)             $  170,520
                                                                           ==========             ==========              ==========
Earnings (loss) per share amount .............................             $      .21             $     (.06)             $      .03
                                                                           ==========             ==========              ==========
</TABLE>
#### WATSON E. BYRD and PAULINE *G.*BYRD, Trading as TOWN ’N COUNTRY CLEANERS, v. JAMES DEWEY HAMPTON and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 29 February, 1956.)

Appeal and Error § 40b—

Where the trial court sets aside the verdict in the exercise of its discretion, there is no final judgment from which an appeal will lie, and all interlocutory rulings, including those relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, must be set aside without prejudice and a *venire cte novo*ordered.

Appeal by defendant Hampton from *Nettles, J.,*September Term, 1955, BuNcombe.

*628Civil action to recover damages resulting from the collision of plaintiff’s jeep station wagon and defendant’s automobile in which the defendant pleaded a cross action or counterclaim.

At the conclusion of the evidence, plaintiff moved for judgment of nonsuit on defendant Hampton’s cross action. The motion was allowed, but no judgment of nonsuit of said cross action was entered. Likewise, defendant insurance company moved for judgment of nonsuit as to it. Said motion was allowed, but the ruling was not reduced to judgment. Proper issues were submitted to the jury, and the issues of negligence and of contributory negligence were both answered in the affirmative. The court promptly, in the exercise of its discretion, set the verdict of the jury aside and ordered a new trial. The defendant excepted and appealed.

*Cogburn & Cogburn for plaintiff appellees.*

*Williams & Williams for defendant Hampton.*

*Meekins, Packer & Roberts for defendant Insurance Company.*

Per OüRIAm.

There were, as stated, a number of interlocutory rulings made during the progress of the trial. However, no final judgment was entered from which an appeal could be prosecuted, and the court, in the exercise of its discretion, set the verdict aside. *Roberts v. Hill,*240 N.C. 373, 82 S.E. 2d 373. Hence the record as it now appears before us contains no final judgment from which appeal will lie. In view of this condition of the record, it is necessary to vacate, without prejudice, all interlocutory rulings made during the progress of the trial, and to remand the cause for a trial *de novo*as to all parties and as to all questions raised by the pleadings. It is so ordered.

*Venire de novo.*