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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 29, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000074856
<NAME>                        Oregon Metallurgical Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         461
<SECURITIES>                                   53,575
<RECEIVABLES>                                  49,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (690)
<INVENTORY>                                    122,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,815
<PP&E>                                         109,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 72,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,514
<BONDS>                                        3,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       16,311
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   267,615
<SALES>                                        67,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               67,337
<CGS>                                          49,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  49,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,035
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,532
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,532
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.46
        


</TABLE>
#### John L. Thompson v. State.

No. 24651.

February 15, 1950.

*274No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of assault with intent to rape. He entered a plea of guilty and waived a trial by jury.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and no statement of facts showing the evidence offered on the trial of the case.

An examination of the record discloses that the punishment of appellant was assessed by the court at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of *“2*to 10 years.”

The judgment is void for want of certainty as to the punishment assessed. See Ex Parte Traxler, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 184 S. W. 2d 286; Edwards v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 219 S. W. 2d 1022; and Ex Parte East, No. 24,705, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 123.

The record fails to show the consent in writing of the attorney for the state to the waiver of a jury as required by Art. 10a, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. The filing of such written consent is a prerequisite to a trial without a jury in a felony case.

The judgment is reversed and remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### TYLER v. NOBLES.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1934.

On Motion to Modify Jan. 7, 1935.

C. O. Andrews, of Orlando, and F. L. Ilemmings, of Fort Pierce, for plaintiff in. error.

Fee *&*Liddon, of Fort Pierce, for defendant in error.

TERRELL, Justice.

The sole question involved in this case is whether or not a county tax collector, who has retired from office without receiving the maximum compensation allowed him under section 757, Rev. Gen. St. of 1920, section 970, Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927, as amended by chapter 15798, § 1, Acts of 1931 (Ex. Sess.) Laws of Florida, is entitled to commissions on tax certificates issued by him to the state while in office but which were redeemed by his successor after he retired from office.

The court below, by sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, answered this question in the negative. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, and this writ of error is from the final judgment.

The question raised here was conclusively settled by this court in Tyler v. Thomas et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848. We do not see that we can add to what we said in that) case, so the judgment below is reversed on authority of Tyler v. Thomas et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848. See, also, Lee v. Smith et al., Ill Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, and Gay v. State ex rel. McKenney, et al., 155 So. 845 decided by this court June 23,1934.

Reversed.

DAVIS, C. J., and WHITFIELD, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

On Motion to Modify.

PER CURIAM.

This cause1 came on to be further heard on the motion to modify the judgment, and it appearing to the court that the law of the case was definitely settled in the decisions cited in our opinion filed November 30, 1934, that there must be an end to litigation some time, and that the plaintiff in error is entitled to judgment in his favor:

It is therefore ordered, adjudicated, and decreed that the motion to modify the judgment entered November 30, 1934, be and the same is granted, in that the cause is reversed, with directions to the court below to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error; no interest to be allowed on said judgment.

It is so ordered.

DAVIS, O. J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2
 THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS A WAIVER OF CERTAIN OF YOUR
LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT
WITH AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING.
 SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
     1.
    
    Resignation as Officer and Director; Cessation of Employment; Payments and Benefits
  Severance and Non-Competition Payments
 Executive Bonus Plan.




---



##### 



2 Automobile
 Computer
 Other Compensation and Benefits.
 Accrued Vacation, Sick Days and Other Compensation
 Coverage Under Health Insurance Benefit Plans.
 Employment Search; Outplacement Services.
 ERISA Rights
 Applicable Taxes
 Deferral




---



##### 



3  2.
    
    Agreement to Assist and Consult
   3.
    
    Release of Liability and Covenant Not to Sue
 et seq. et seq. et seq. et seq. et seq. et seq.




---



##### 



4 4.
    
    Waiver of Relief
  5.
    
    No Admission of Liability
  6.
    
    Return of Property
   7.
    
    Litigation Cooperation
  8.
    
    Non-Competition Agreement; Non-Solicitation; Non-Disparagement; Confidentiality




---



##### 



5       9.
    
    Entire Agreement; Counterparts; Amendments




---



##### 



6  10.
    
    Severability
  11. Governing Law
  12.
    
    Judicial Enforcement
  13.
    
    Voluntary and Understanding Execution
  14.
    
    Consideration and Revocation Periods




---



##### 



JEFFREY D. FISHER/s/ Jeffrey D. FisherDate:      July 15, 2008SPARTECH CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Myles S. Odaniell

Myles S. OdaniellPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    July 14, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000916230
<NAME> PROTECTION ONE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,025
<SECURITIES>                                    17,770
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,993
<INVENTORY>                                      7,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,840
<PP&E>                                          61,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,510,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          278,408
<BONDS>                                        829,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,268
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,342,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,510,436
<SALES>                                        421,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               421,095
<CGS>                                          131,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (20,570)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,567
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (823)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,591
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6333 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish, maintain, or support 

any national database identifying individuals as having received or not 

received any vaccine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 20, 2021 

Mrs. LESKO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish, maintain, 

or support any national database identifying individuals 

as having received or not received any vaccine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR NATIONAL DATABASE 

4 IDENTIFYING VACCINATED OR 

5 UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS. 

6 No Federal funds may be used to establish, maintain, 

7 or support any national database identifying individuals 

8 as having received or not received any vaccine. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH R. AUGUST and D. ANGEL AUGUST,

Appellants,

v.

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 

A Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3868

[December 31, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jaimie Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-CA003892-XXXX-MB.

Bruce K. Herman of The Herman Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellants.

Morgan L. Weinstein of Van Ness Law Firm, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6203 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow for blended workforces 

to carry out the supplemental nutrition assistance program under certain 

conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Mr. BACON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow 

for blended workforces to carry out the supplemental 

nutrition assistance program under certain conditions. 

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 ‘‘Emergency SNAP 

5 Staffing Flexibility Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SNAP STAFFING FLEXI7 BILITY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

9 11(e)(6)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, a 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6203 IH

1 State agency (as defined in section 3 of the Food and Nu2 trition Act of 2008) may, by contract with the State agen3 cy at a reasonable cost in accordance with the State agen4 cy’s standard contracting rules, hire a contractor to under5 take supplemental nutrition assistance program certifi6 cation or carry out any other function of the State agency 

7 under such program. 

8 (b) USE.—A State agency may use the authority pro9 vided in subsection (a) when the State experiences in10 creases in supplemental nutrition assistance program ap11 plications or an inability to timely process such applica12 tions from causes that include— 

13 (1) pandemics and other health emergencies, 

14 (2) seasonal workforce cycles, 

15 (3) temporary staffing shortages, and 

16 (4) weather or other natural disasters. 

17 (c) REQUIREMENTS.—A State agency that hires a 

18 contractor under subsection (a) shall ensure such action— 

19 (1) is consistent with all principles under sec20 tion 900.603 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regu21 lations; and 

22 (2) does not supplant existing merit-based per23 sonnel in the State. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6203 IH

1 (d) NOTIFICATION.—A State agency shall notify the 

2 Secretary of Agriculture of the intent to use the authority 

3 provided in this section. 

4 (e) DURATION.—To the maximum extent practicable, 

5 any new contract entered into, or any contract modified, 

6 under subsection (a) shall terminate not later than the 

7 date on which the cause for the increase in supplemental 

8 nutrition assistance program applications or an inability 

9 to timely process such applications subsides. 

10 (f) PROGRAM DESIGN.—Any action taken by a State 

11 agency under subsection (a) shall not be— 

12 (1) considered to be a major change in the op13 erations of such State agency for the purposes of 

14 section 11(a)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

15 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(a)(4)), or 

16 (2) subject to any requirement specified in such 

17 section. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### LAFRENZ v. LABAW (BARRON, Intervener).

No. 6618.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1943.

See also 18 So.2d 864.

John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

J. D. Rusca and B. B. Breazeale, both of Natchitoches, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a suit by a non-resident against another non-resident to secure a judgment ifor $500, with interest. Jurisdiction is giv- • en.'the Tenth Judicial District Court of this State by the attachment of forty acres of land in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, alleged to be owned by the defendant. Appellant intervened in the suit claiming to be the owner of the forty acres attached, having acquired same by two tax deeds from the Sheriff of Natchitoches Parish which recite the property was sold as the property of defendant for non-payment of taxes for the years 1940 and 1941. The period for the redemption of the property had not passed.

The lower court awarded judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for, sustaining the writ of attachment and dismissing the demands of intervenor, appellant here. The minutes of the Court disclose the following reason for the decision of the lower Court:

> “Case tried and in this case the court being of the opinion the intervenor ceases to have any interest for the reason that the evidence presented at the time of judgment was rendered shows conclusively that the money due intervenor to redeem the property was paid into the hands of the Sheriff and the property redeemed. Bill reserved by counsel for intervenor to the ruling of the Court.”

The record fails to contain the evidence of redemption referred to in the above excerpt from the minutes. Appellee has filed a motion here to remand the case for the purpose of completing the record by inserting the evidence offered as to the redemption. It is certain that if the property was redeemed by defendant within the redemption period allowed by law, then the inter-venor is without interest in this suit. The only way we can pass on the legality of the redemption is for the evidence of it to be before us.

Since the minutes show there was such evidence offered and acted upon by the court below, we conclude that it is proper to remand the case to the lower court for completion of the record in that respect, and it is so ordered.
#### Brenda L. JAMISON, Petitioner, v. OLGA COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor; West Virginia Coal Worker’s Pneumoconiosis Fund, Incorporated, Respondents.

No. 02-1964.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Brenda L. Jamison, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Barry H. Joyner, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*626PER CURIAM.

Brenda L. Jamison seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. *See Jamison v. Olga Coal Co.,*No. 01-0952-BLA (BRB July 19, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 OF PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         143,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  395,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    263,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               967,000
<PP&E>                                       6,142,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,641,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,901,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          771,500
<BONDS>                                        801,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       362,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,011,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,901,500
<SALES>                                      1,354,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,354,200
<CGS>                                        1,073,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,073,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               248,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (81,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,500)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)


</TABLE>
#### LOPEZ v. DAVIDSON.

No. 2803.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 14, 1946.

Welton P. Mouton, of Lafayette, for appellant.

Voorhies & Labbe, of Lafayette, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

This is a summary proceeding by the plaintiff to eject the defendant from certain premises in the City of Lafayette. It is alleged in the petition that the defendant was occupying the premises under a verbal lease from month to month at the rental of $15 per month, and that the defendant had been duly notified to vacate the premises. A rule was served on the defendant in due course, and he appeared and filed certain exceptions and an answer. After a hearing, the trial judge dismissed the rule, and plaintiff asked for and was granted an appeal to this court.

The defendant filed a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the case rationae materiae. This motion is well taken and the appeal must be dismissed, making' it unnecessary to consider any other issues in the case.

Under Section 29 of Article *7*of the Constitution, this court has appellate jurisdiction in civil and probate matters in those cases where the district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction, regardless of the amount involved, or concurrent jurisdiction exceeding one hundred dollars,- and where the Supreme Court is not given appellate jurisdiction (except as otherwise provided in the Constitution). The district courts do not have exclusive original jurisdiction over suits by a landlord for the possession of leased premises where the monthly or yearly rent, or the rent for the unexpired term of the lease, does not exceed one hundred dollars, but in such a case the district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the justices of the peace or municipal courts. Constitution, Article 7, Sections 35, 48 and 51.

Plaintiff alleges in his petition that the monthly rental is fifteen dollars, and there is no amount involved exceeding one hundred dollars. It is therefore clear that the district court of Lafayette Parish had concurrent jurisdiction of this case with the City Court of Lafayette, and there is no appeal to this court. See Elkins v. Lents, La.App., 192 So. 772; Childs v. Jones, La.App., 24 So.2d 641; Id., La.Sup., 25 So.2d 281.

For .the reasons assigned, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed at the cost of plaintiff in both courts.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


May 8, 2001




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated April 23, 2001 on our review of interim
financial information of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the "Corporation") as of and
for the period ended March 31, 2001 and included in the Corporation's quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in
its Registration Statements and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-43890, 33-44380 and 333-36415), Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443, 33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363, 33-34362,
33-62648, 333-42231, and 333-52175), and Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 on Form
S-8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061).

Very truly yours,




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP