alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Segment Information - Narrative (Details)** | 3 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Segment Reporting [Abstract]**              |           |
| Number of Industries Operating In | industry  | 2              |
| Number of Reportable Segments | segment       | 5              |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Number of Industries Operating In
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cinf_NumberOfIndustriesOperatingIn**Namespace Prefix:**cinf_**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Number of segments reported by the entity. A reportable segment is a component of an entity for which there is an accounting requirement to report separate financial information on that component in the entity's financial statements.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_NumberOfReportableSegments**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_SegmentReportingAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Exhibit
32.2
  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 Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jing Hao, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
 
 Dated:
      March 27, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Jing HaoJing
      Hao
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                (principal
      financial and accounting officer )
Exhibit
      32.1





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 this amended Annual Report of ESCO, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William T. Foley,
      Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Dated: October
                7, 2008
            By:
            /s/ William
                T. FoleyWilliam
                T. Foley, President(Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Back to Contents

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applera Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis L. Winger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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. |

/s/Dennis L. Winger          Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 10, 2005
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-183190 on Form S-3 and No. 333-176246 on Form S-8 of Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2012 related to the financial statements of BR Korea Co., Ltd. as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and for each of the two fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the application of Accounting Standards for Non-Public Entities in the Republic of Korea (“KAS-NPE”) as of January 1, 2011 and the nature and effect of differences between Accounting Standards for Non-Public Entities in the Republic of Korea (“KAS-NPE”) and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America), appearing in the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dunkin Brands Group, Inc. for the year ended December 29, 2012.








/s/ DELOITTE ANJIN LLC





March 27, 2013
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Shore Gas Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 13, 2003

  /s/  Thomas M. Patrick
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6318 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax benefits 

related to empowerment zones to the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Ms. NORTON 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 extend 

certain tax benefits related to empowerment zones to 

the District of Columbia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TREATED AS EM4 POWERMENT ZONE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1391(b)(2) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: ‘‘There shall be treated as an empowerment 

8 zone designated under this section so much of the District 

9 of Columbia as would result in the largest area within such 

10 District meeting the eligibility requirements for designaVerDate Sep 11 2014 17:11 Dec 23, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6318.IH H6318

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6318 IH

1 tion under section 1391. Deemed treatment under the pre2 ceding sentence shall not be taken into account in deter3 mining the number of empowerment zones which may be 

4 designated under this section.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to periods beginning after Decem7 ber 31, 2021. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10(h)

Contract No. 113416

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (Natural)

TRANSPORTATION RATE SCHEDULE DSS

AMENDMENT NO. 1 DATED April 17, 2000

TO AGREEMENT DATED January 15, 1998 (Agreement)

 

1.	[ ] Exhibit A dated April 17, 2000. Changes Primary Receipt Point(s)/Secondary Receipt Point(s) and Point MDQ's. This Exhibit A replaces any previously dated Exhibit A.

2.	[X] Exhibit B dated April 17, 2000. Changes Primary Delivery Point(s)/Secondary Delivery Point(s) and Point MDQ's. This Exhibit B replaces any previously dated Exhibit B.

3.	[ ] Exhibits A and B dated April 17, 2000. Changes Primary Receipt and Delivery Points/Secondary Receipt and Delivery Points. These Exhibits A and B replace any previously dated Exhibits A and B.

4.	[ ] Exhibit C dated April 17, 2000. Changes the Agreement's Path. This Exhibit C replaces any previously dated Exhibit C.

5.	[ ] Revise Agreement MDQ: [ ] Increase [ ] Decrease
#### CITY OF WINTER PARK v. STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL et al.*

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

May 15, 1935.

*387W. E. Winderweedle, of Winter Park, and •Jones & White, of Clearwater, for plaintiff in error.

Hugh Akerman and T. P. Warlow, both of Orlando, Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Dickinson & Dickinson, of Orlando, for defendants in error.

*

’Rehearing denied June 22, 1935.

PEE. CURIAM.

The writ of error'in this ease brings for review judgment of ouster in quo warranto proceedings instituted to test the validity of chapter 11325, Sp. Laws Fla. 1925, and chapter 11802, Laws Fla., Ex. Sess., 1925.

The action was brought by the Attorney General and certain corelators, landowners within the area included in the charter acts above referred to, which was not included in former legislative acts fixing the boundaries of the town of Winter Park.

The contention being that the lands of the corelators specially described in the information constituted a large part of the territory included within the boundaries by such latter legislative acts and that such lands were either wild, unimproved, and unfit for urban use or that they were lands devoted to the culture of orange groves and farm products and in either case could not receive and had not received any municipal benefits by reason of being included within the territorial boundaries of the municipality and that such lands were so included for the sole purpose of affording the municipality additional property upon which to levy and collect taxes. The sole question presented by the pleadings is whether or not the inclusion of the territory as to which ouster is sought was within the province of the Legislature to be included in the municipality.

In the judgment of ouster the lower court determined and adjudged that in so far as the legislative acts above referred to sought to include the described territory within the municipality such acts were unconstitutional because they exceeded the power of the Legislature and violated the constitutional rights of the relators and parties in similar circumstances and like situation and were, therefore, of no force and effect.

We think that no useful purpose could be served by repeating what has been heretofore held as the applicable law in such eases by this court, The judgment should be affirmed on authority of State ex rel. v. City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 So. 409, and State ex rel. v. City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21, 149 So. 420.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. X, and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, O. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.

DAVIS, J., not participating.

BROWN, Justice

(dissenting).

By waiting for over eight years and acquiescing in the extension act for that period, I think the corelators are estopped, and I do not see that the Attorney General, acting for the state, has any right to complain. The interests of the state are not adversely affected, so far as I can see. State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 473.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Dedra Lynn Crider

, * From the 35 th District Court

of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR23427

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00302

- CR * March 30 , 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson , J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

s itting by assignment )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t her e

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET  AT JUNE  30,  1998  AND THE  RELATED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         336,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    287,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,192,400
<PP&E>                                       3,515,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,061,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          676,800
<BONDS>                                        831,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       366,700
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,254,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,061,000
<SALES>                                      1,592,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,592,700
<CGS>                                        1,196,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,196,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (15,300)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                326,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                   119,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            204,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   204,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.48
        

</TABLE>
#### WILLIAMS et al. v. SIMON.

No. 16215.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 27, 1936.

E. B. Charbonnet, Jr., and Loys Char-bonnet, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Rayl & Loeb, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for rent in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for $138.50. The only issue presented by this appeal is an alleged credit of $25, for defendant concedes an indebtedness of $113.50.

The evidence is confusing and conflicting. The rent due by defendant was $25 per month, which was often paid in installments. No receipts were produced for any of the payments, and no account appears to have been kept by either party except a memorandum book by the witness Albert Williams, who collected the rent for plaintiff. Defendant complains of the use of this book, which was not introduced in evidence. We see no objection to his referring to the entries therein, which, according to the testimony, were made contemporaneous with the collections, as a means of refreshing his memory. Wig-more on Evidence (2d Ed.) vol. 11, §§ 758 et seq. and 800; Kendall v. Bean, 12 Rob. 407; Flower v. Downs, 6 La.Ann. 538. The trial court evidently believed this witness and rendered judgment accordingly. We cannot see any reason to disturb that judgment.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Felix RUBIO, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 00-50210.

D.C. No. CR-98-03557-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.*

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Before PREGERSON, THOMPSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Felix Rubio pled guilty to one count of conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He now challenges aspects of his plea colloquy and asserts *Apprendi*error in the imposition of his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court.

We find no plain error in the district court’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 colloquy. *See United States v. Jimenez-Dominguez,*296 F.3d 863, 866 (9th Cir.2002) (citing *United States v. Vonn,*535 U.S. 55,-, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1048, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002)). The district court did not plainly err by affirming the defense counsel’s inaccurate recitation of the applicable minimum sentence because it neither “affected [Rubio’s] substantial rights,” nor “seriously affectfed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). This is because the alleged sentencing dispute concerned whether the mandatory ten-year minimum sentence required a methamphetamine quantity of five hundred or one thousand grams, and Rubio was determined to have conspired to manufacture three thousand grams of methamphetamine, an amount that triggered the ten-year mandatory minimum in either event.

We also reject Rubio’s other arguments. A district court does not plainly err in finding a sentencing factor by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as the actual sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum. *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 568-71 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc), *cert. denied,*■ — ■ U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002); *cf. Harris v. United States,*— U.S.-,-, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 2410, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002) (plurality opinion). Furthermore, a district court may determine a sentence on the basis of a mandatory minimum predicated upon a sentencing factor proven only by a preponderance of *889the evidence. *Harris,*— U.S. at 122 S.Ct. at 2414.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of D.F.M. and * From the 318th District Court

Z.M.C., children, of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM 58,607.

No. 11-16-00085-CV * July 28, 2016

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

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

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

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

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the appeal is dismissed.