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


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            4,057
<EQUITIES>                                     0
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 4,233
<CASH>                                         19
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             1,264
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,476
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                3,760
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            696
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                123
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          25
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,198
<OTHER-SE>                                     285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,476
<PREMIUMS>                                     1,539
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            290
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (4)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 0
<BENEFITS>                                     1,138
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                75
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            79
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   79
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.28
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 3,886
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                3,760
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Kenneth SUITTER, d/b/a Sound Investment, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLIDAY INN SOUTHWEST, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 63233.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 9, 1993.

Beach, Burcke, Heifers & Waltrip, P.C., David G. Waltrip, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

James A. Fredericks, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Kenneth Suitter d/b/a Sound Investment, brought an action against defendant, Holiday Inn Southwest, seeking injunc-tive relief and damages for the alleged breach of a non-competition agreement in an employment contract between him and defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, in a court-tried case, in favor of defendant.

*437We have reviewed the record on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of B.Q.S., III, a child, * From the 158th District

Court of Denton County,

 Trial Court No. 2012-20640-158.

No. 11-13-00043-CV * June 26, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error 

in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we reverse 

the order of parentage of the trial court, and we remand this cause to the trial court for 

further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Wendy Meggs.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19282-19283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application, document availability, and 
public comment period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 19283]] 

    The following applicant has applied for permits to conduct certain 
activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to 
section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531, et seq.):
    Applicant: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 
3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

Permit No. PRT-697830

    The applicant requests an amendment to their current permit to take 
the following species for scientific purposes and the enhancement of 
propagation or survival in accordance with recovery outlines, recovery 
plans, listing, or other Service work for those species.

1. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava)
2. Cracking pearly mussel (Hemistena (=Lastena) lata)
3. Ring pink (=golf stick pearly) mussel (Obovaria retusa)
4. Purple cat's paw pearly mussel (Epioblasma (=Dysnomia) obliquata 
obliquata (=E. sulcata sulcata))
5. Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana)
6. Hungerford's crawling water beetle (Brychius hungerfordi)
7. Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana)
    Documents and other information submitted with these applications 
are available to the public during normal business hours (7:30 a.m.--4 
p.m.) in Room 650, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, 1 Federal Drive, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.
    Interested persons may comment on any of these applications within 
30 days of the date of this publication by submitting written views, 
arguments, or data to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Region 3, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056. Please refer to PRT-697830 when submitting comments.

    Dated: April 10, 1995.
William F. Hartwig,
Regional Director, Region 3, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, 
Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 95-9339 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60365 Summary Calendar

GARY MOAWAD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FRED CHILDS; AARON JAGER; CARMEN GETTIS CASTILLA; MACKEY HOPKINS; HUBERT FOSTER; JIMMY FULCE; ROBERT HUGHES; MARVEN BROSS; EUGENE MAILEY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:90-CV-172-S-B

- - - - - - - - - - April 9, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gary Moawad, Mississippi prisoner #31272, appeals from the district court’s denial of his “Motion to Enforce and/or Modify Injunctive Relief Entered in an Agreed Order.” Moawad argues that the parole board failed to view the comments of the elected officials with appropriate care and caution in violation of the agreed order.No. 00-60365 -2- The movant in a civil contempt proceeding bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a court order was in effect; (2) the order required certain conduct by the respondent; and (3) the respondent failed to comply with the court’s order. Martin v. Trinity Indus., Inc. , 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). In the contempt context, “clear and convincing evidence” is that “weight of proof which produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable fact finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the case.” Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford , 68 F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This court reviews a district court’s ruling on a motion for contempt for an abuse of discretion and its underlying factual findings for clear error. Id. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10319]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP96-330-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

April 22, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 16, 1996, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia Gas), Post Office Box 1273, Charleston, West 
Virginia 25325-1273, filed in Docket No. CP96-330-000 a request 
pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for 
authorization to construct and operate the facilities necessary to 
establish eight additional points of delivery to two existing 
customers, Waterville Oil and Gas Company and Mountaineer Gas Company, 
under the blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, 
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Columbia Gas asserts that the proposed delivery points will 
establish eight new points of delivery for residential consumption for 
firm transportation service under Part 284 of the Commission's 
regulations and existing authorized Rate Schedules and within 
certificated entitlements. Columbia Gas estimates that the design day 
quantity at Waterville Oil and Gas Company will be 1.5 Dth and the 
annual quantity will be 200 Dth, the design day quantity at Mountaineer 
Gas Company will be 10.5 Dth and the annual quantity will be 1,050 Dth.
    Columbia Gas estimates that the cost to install the new taps will 
be approximately $150 per tap which will be treated as an O&M Expense.
    Columbia Gas states that the quantities to be provided through the 
new delivery points will be within Columbia Gas' authorized level of 
services. Further, Columbia Gas asserts that there will be no impact on 
its existing design day and annual obligations to the customers as a 
result of the construction and operation of the new delivery points.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's procedural rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10319 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10436]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-3; RM-8735]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Imboden, AR

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

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

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a petition filed on behalf of John J. 
Shields, which requested the allotment of Channel 289A to Imboden, 
Arkansas, as that community's first local aural transmission service, 
based upon the lack of an expression of interest in pursuing the 
proposal by the petitioner or any other party. See 61 FR 4393, February 
6, 1996. With this action, the proceeeding is terminated.

DATE: This dismissal is made on April 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-3, adopted April 4, 1996, and 
released April 23, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 
20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10436 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Exhibit 99.1


         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE
         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Telco-Technology, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
the undersigned's knowledge, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of
          the Company.


March 21, 2003           /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
Date                     Donald R. McKelvey,
                         Chairman of the Board and
                         President


March 21, 2003           /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
Date                     Donald R. McKelvey,
                         Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11107]



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


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 30, 1996.

Place: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Enforcement Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-11107 Filed 4-30-96; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 0611 V

Filed: July 29, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

ROBERT FUERSTENAU

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Ryan Al a n Yeary, Caminez & Y ear y, P.A., Montice llo, FL , for petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On April 30, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain

- Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving

the trivalent influenza vaccination on October 5 , 201 5 . Petit ion at 1, ¶ 2

. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccination in the United States, that he suffered the

residual effects of his GBS for more than six months, and that neither he nor any other party has filed a civil action or r eceived compensation for h is GBS

. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 11

- 1 3

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine
Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the
disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned
agrees that the iden tified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management
and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 10 0 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012 ).2

On July 26, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent indicates “ [i] t is [his] position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation ( “QAI”). ” Id. at 4 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), 100.3(c)(15) ).

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
#### AMERICAN NURSING RESOURCES, a Missouri corporation, Appellant, v. Joann RADFORD, Respondent.

No. 54545.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 27, 1988.

Ernie Brasier, St. Louis, for appellant.

*537Ray Dickhaner, Hillsboro, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

American Nursing Resources (American) appeals from a judgment denying wife’s liability to pay for nursing services rendered to her husband. We affirm.

American began providing private nursing services to Larry Radford (husband) on May 18, 1986. On September 11, 1986, respondent Joann Radford (wife) executed a written service agreement providing that she would be financially responsible to American for the services it was to provide to husband. American continued services until October 21, 1986. Husband died sometime thereafter. The total value of the nursing services so provided was $5,191.50.

The trial court found wife owed American $1,248.20, the amount due for services provided after the date wife signed the service agreement. American asserts the trial court erred by not finding wife liable for all nursing services provided to her husband.

American did not provide any contract relating to the services provided to husband that pre-dated the September 11, 1986 service agreement signed by wife. Nor did the contract wife signed purport to make her liable for the services American provided prior to the contract date. American produced no evidence as to who initially requested the services. Wife is not liable for nursing services provided to her husband that she did not contract for. *See Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Smith,*480 So.2d 1366 [1] (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1985), *approved,*497 So.2d 644 (Fla.1986) (wife not responsible for medical services of husband that she did not contract for); *Cf. Twin Bridges Constr. Co., Inc. v. Ferner,*700 S.W.2d 534, 539 [7] (Mo.App.1985) (wife not personally liable for construction debt on home she and husband owned as tenants by the entireties, where wife did not participate in negotiations, there was no written contract, and oral contract was made by husband).

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40193 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAUL IGLESIAS-ALANIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-238-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 1, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Saul Iglesias-Alanis has filed a motion and brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Iglesias-Alanis has filed a pro se supplemental brief in response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, the record, and the pro se submission discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.