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

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</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>                                                         20,493
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 194,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   44,652
<INVENTORY>                                                    18,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              239,025
<PP&E>                                                        513,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                                345,551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                629,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         159,381
<BONDS>                                                       394,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                           52
<OTHER-SE>                                                     75,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  629,051
<SALES>                                                       940,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              940,024
<CGS>                                                         267,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 267,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               34,314
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             42,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                73,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 (130,954)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           204,135
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  204,135
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      3.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    3.81


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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                            $3,094,694
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        209,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3,460,335
<PP&E>                                             2,439,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                        60,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     6,699,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,077,681
<BONDS>                                              612,380
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                1
<COMMON>                                          14,774,654
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       6,699,264
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,943,752
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    33,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (2,977,326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.24)



</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2402

___________

James R. Fredricks, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

ADM Milling Company, Inc. *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 17, 1997

 Filed: April 7, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James R. Fredricks brought this action under the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, against ADM

Milling Co., Inc. (ADM). He asserted that after he underwent total left

knee replacement surgery in 1992, ADM refused to let him resume the

maintenance position he had held since the mid-1970s. The parties agreed

to the appointment of a Special Master, whose factual findings would be

final. 

After a hearing, the Special Master found that Fredricks could not

perform the required functions of his maintenance position without

violating medical restrictions his treating physician imposed upon

releasing him to return to work. The Special Master further found that

ADM's decision not to return Fredricks to his 
 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

prior position was based on those medical restrictions, and thus concluded

that his ADA claim failed. The district court held that the Special

1

Master committed no error of law, and adopted the report. Fredricks timely

appealed. 

After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we agree with the

district court's conclusion. See Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382,

385 (8th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 488 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 488

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 
 made to reporting of third party network transactions by the American 
                        Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2023

  Mrs. Steel (for herself, Ms. Salazar, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Burchett, 
 Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, and Mr. Crenshaw) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 
 made to reporting of third party network transactions by the American 
                        Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the Nosy Obsession with Online 
Payments Act of 2023'' or the ``SNOOP Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MODIFICATION OF EXCEPTIONS FOR REPORTING OF THIRD 
              PARTY NETWORK TRANSACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6050W(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Exception for De Minimis Payments by Third Party Settlement 
Organizations.--A third party settlement organization shall be required 
to report any information under subsection (a) with respect to third 
party network transactions of any participating payee only if--
            ``(1) the amount which would otherwise be reported under 
        subsection (a)(2) with respect to such transactions exceeds 
        $20,000, and
            ``(2) the aggregate number of such transactions exceeds 
        200.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6050W(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``described in subsection 
(d)(3)(A)(iii)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
        apply to returns for calendar years beginning after December 
        31, 2021.
            (2) Clarification.--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
        shall apply to transactions after the date of the enactment of 
        the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10(n)




                           THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                   STOCK PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is dated as of October 1, 2000 and is by
and between OTR Express, Inc. (the "Company") and Steven W. Ruben, Vice
President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company ("Ruben").
This Amendment relates to and amends that certain Stock Purchase
Assistance Agreement dated February 27, 1998, as amended on January 31,
2000 and June 1, 2000 by and between the Company and Ruben (the
"Agreement").

   Section 7(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add a new
paragraph, which reads as follows:

      (i)    Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this
      Section 7(a)(i) and beginning October 1, 2000, in lieu
      thereof, for each monthly Principal Payment Reimbursement
      period as Ruben is employed by the Company in an officer
      position, the Company shall make payments to Ruben (or
      directly to the Bank, if instructed by Ruben but if Ruben
      is in default under the Loan, then if instructed by the
      Bank) the amount of $3,333.33 as Principal Payment
      Reimbursement (equivalent to one-twelfth (1/12th) of the
      amount of principal outstanding on September 30, 2000).
      Upon Ruben's receipt of any such payment, he shall apply
      such funds to the payment of the principal amount of the
      Loan to which it relates (unless he has already made such
      Loan payment from personal or other sources).

The remainder of the Agreement, and the Agreement as amended, shall
continue in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties have executed this Agreement
intending to be bound thereby.


                                            /s/ Steven W. Ruben
                                            Steven W.  Ruben

                                            OTR Express Inc.
                                            By: /s/ William P. Ward
                                            Name: Willim P. Ward
                                            Title: Chairman of the Board
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 2 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JACK DAVID COX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 98-5123 (D.C. No. 96-CV-876-E) (N.D. Okla.)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCKand HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Jack David Cox filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2 255 claiming that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective a ssistance of counsel in his 1994 criminal trial. The district court denied the petition. Mr. Cox asks us to grant a certificate of appealability and reverse. After review of the record in this case and the arg uments set forth by petitioner, we are persuaded that the district court did not err in its careful and thorough analysis of Mr. Cox’s contentions. Substantially for the reasons given by the district court in its Order filed May 28, 19 98, we are persuaded Mr. Cox has not “made a substantial showing of the denial o f a constitutional right” as required for the issuance of a certificate of appea lability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). We therefore DENY Mr. Cox’s motion for a certificate and DISMISS the appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15810-15811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7371]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard
[CGD8-95-003]


Eighth Coast Guard District Industry Day Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, is sponsoring a 
Marine Safety Industry Day to discuss various topics of interest to the 
marine community. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 16, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Fairmont Hotel, 123 Baronne 
Street (at University Place), New Orleans, LA. The telephone number for 
the hotel is (504) 529-7111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CDR S. P. Glenn, U.S. Coast Guard, c/o Commander (mep), Eighth Coast 
Guard District, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., Room 1341, 501 Magazine 
Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396; telephone number (504) 589-6271; 
fax number (504) 589-4999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The past several years, the marine industry 
has undergone significant change. A much more competitive marketplace, 
an emphasis on quality, regulatory initiatives in response to several 
marine casualties, and significant legislation, such as OPA 90, have 
influenced and changed the way virtually all segments of the industry 
currently conduct business. The Coast Guard also has taken a new 
approach as a regulatory agency and embarked on several major 
[[Page 15811]] initiatives to improve quality and customer service.
    For this year's industry day, we plan to present a series of 
speakers representing all segments of the industry followed by panel 
sessions in the afternoon. These presentations, among other topics, 
will include: the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, New 
Spill Doctrine, Offshore Issues, ABS Based Alternative Compliance 
Program, Spill Management, Maritime Law Issues, Licensing, and 
Commercial Vessel Safety.
    The agenda is:

May 16, 1995--Fairmont Hotel

8:30 a.m.--Registration
9:30 a.m.--Welcome and Introductions Speaker presentations (plenary)
12:00 a.m.--Luncheon with keynote speaker
2:00 p.m.--Panel sessions
4:00 p.m.--Industry Day concludes

    Attendance is open to the public. Preregistration for the program 
is required to assure adequate space. The conference and luncheon fee 
will be $30.00. Contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to obtain registration forms and luncheon 
menu. Reservations must be received no later than April 17, 1995.

    Dated: March 8, 1995.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-7371 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
was made in good faith, it further found that Kieckhefer could nonetheless 

win his defamation lawsuit by showing that Schmidt made the statement 

with malice. 

On appeal, Schmidt argues that Kieckhefer failed to show by 

clear and convincing evidence a probability of success in his defamation 

suit. He argues that the Las Vegas Sun article may be read to imply that 

the "longtime leader" that Kieckhefer supported was Harry Reid. 

Prior to 2013, this court treated special motions to dismiss as 

motions for summary judgment and therefore reviewed the resulting 

orders de novo. 2 See John v. Douglas Cnty. Sch, Dist., 125 Nev. 746, 753, 

219 P.3d 1276, 1281 (2009). After 2013, however, with the plaintiffs 

burden increased to clear and convincing evidence, this court will provide 

greater deference to the lower court's findings of fact and therefore will 

review for an abuse of discretion. 

"This court will affirm a district court's order if the district 

court reached the correct result, even if for the wrong reason." SaavedraSandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 

(2010). 

We conclude that the district court correctly denied Schmidt's 

motion to dismiss, but abused its discretion when it erroneously found 

that Schmidt made his statements in good faith. There is no rational way 

to read the Las Vegas Sun article without concluding that Kieckhefer 

2NRS 41.660(3)(a), as enacted in 1997, provided specific instruction 

to "R]reat the motion as a motion for summary judgment." In 2013, the 

legislature amended NRS 41.660(3)(b) to require the plaintiff establish by 

clear and convincing evidence his or her probability of prevailing on the 

merits. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1.947A 44e4 
jAi 51 ns2_ 

Parraguirre 

A J. 

Pickering 

supported Raggio for majority leader. Because one cannot rationally infer 

from this article that Kieckhefer supported Reid and there has been 

absolutely no other evidence presented that supports Schmidt's statement, 

we conclude that he did not act in good faith when he claimed that 

Kieckhefer supported Reid. 3Accordingly, we 

ORDER the decision of the district court AFFIRMED. 

fi

c4A , C.J. 

Hardesty 

CC: Hon. Jerome M. Polaha, District Judge 

Charles R. Kozak 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

3It is therefore unnecessary to reach a conclusion on the second 

prong of the special motion to dismiss, namely whether Kieckhefer has 

shown clear and convincing evidence that he has a probability of success 

on the merits of his defamation suit. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4068

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THOR
VENTURES CORP., FIRST QUARTER 2000, UNAUDITED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,345
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,892
<PP&E>                                           2,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (527)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,214
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,170
<OTHER-SE>                                   (196,356)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>