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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Unaudited
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      151924
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              3013143
<ALLOWANCES>                               (474376)
<INVENTORY>                                  27159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3352698
<PP&E>                                    10482872
<DEPRECIATION>                            (2155220)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            11987760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5922990
<BONDS>                                    5582627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                      1569
<OTHER-SE>                                  480574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              11987760
<SALES>                                   12551320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          12553900
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             12381186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              6732
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          622996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (356566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (356566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (356566)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.02)


</TABLE>
#### Niagara Falls Sightseeing by Sheridan, Inc., Respondent, v Penn Advertising, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: In this action plaintiff contends that defendants created a public nuisance by erecting a highway directional sign in violation of Federal and State law *(see,*23 USC § 131; 23 CFR 750.154; Highway Law § 88 [2], [8]; 17 NYCRR 150.14 [b] [6] [ii] [a]) and that they failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, directed defendants to remove the sign then in place or to remove the directional language and symbols on the sign, and denied defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint. We reverse.

Initially, we reject the contention that this matter is moot *862because defendants have removed the sign in issue. Plaintiff requested in its complaint not only that the sign be removed but that defendants be prohibited from erecting other such signs. Since defendants erected a similar sign during the pendency of plaintiffs motion, the issue of the propriety of the sign is not academic *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Addressing the merits, we conclude that the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the first cause of action for a public nuisance because the Legislature has vested the authority to regulate highway signs in the Commissioner of Transportation (Highway Law § 88 [8]). Here, defendants have already received approval for their sign from the Commissioner’s office and deference to that determination is required *(see, Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys.,*113 AD2d 440, 444, *affd*69 NY2d 355). Moreover, control and abatement of a public nuisance is ordinarily accomplished through a suit brought in behalf of the public *(see, Nassau Neuropsychiatric Socy. v Adelphi Univ.,*18 NY2d 370, 375). Plaintiffs lawsuit is a private action based on allegations of commercial loss.

Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs second cause of action because the issue of compliance with SEQRA can be judicially reviewed only in a CPLR article 78 proceeding *(see, Pizzuti v Metropolitan Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 1039, 1041). The claim lacks merit in any event because the ministerial act of controlling outdoor advertising signs is exempt from the requirements of SEQRA *(see,*17 NYCRR 15.12 [g]; 15.13 [a]).

Since plaintiff has failed to state a valid cause of action the court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, which is a necessary condition for entitlement to a preliminary injunction *(see, After Six v 201 E. 66th St. Assocs.,*87 AD2d 153, 155, *appeal dismissed*57 NY2d 835). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Sedita, J.—preliminary injunction.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Den-man, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RAYMOND E. BRADLEY,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 310, 2017

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 92S05720DI (S)

§

§

§

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: December 1, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 1st day of December 2017, after careful consideration of the opening 

brief, the motion to affirm, and the record below, we conclude that the July 12, 2017

Superior Court order denying the appellant’s fourth motion for postconviction relief 

and motion for appointment of counsel under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 

should be affirmed. The appellant’s restatement of his previous ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims and contention that his sexual relationship with the 

murder victim’s girlfriend began when he was underage do not constitute “new 

evidence” creating “a strong inference” that he “is actually innocent in fact of the 
2

acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted.”1 We also note that this is 

the appellant’s fourth postconviction motion. We will not continue to invest scare 

judicial resources to address untimely claims. We encourage the appellant to be 

mindful of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(j).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

1 Super. Ct. Crim. 61(d)(2)(i) (providing second or subsequent motion for motion postconviction 

relief is not subject to summary dismissal if the movant satisfies this standard).

2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the 

movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20245]



[[Page 51302]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 26, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. FA Capital, LLC, and Community Bank Investors of America, L.P., 
both of Richmond, Virginia, to acquire up to 58.01 percent of the 
voting securities of Freedom Bank, Bradenton, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 27, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-20245 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

<CAPTION>
STATEMENT OF INCOME

(Dollars  in Thousands Except Per Share Amounts)

                                      Unaudited          Unaudited
                                   3 Months Ended      6 Months Ended
                                      June 30             June 30    
                                   1997      1996      1997      1996

INCOME AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION:
     <S>                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
     Cash Rental                   $229      $229      $458      $458
     Interest                         -         -         -         -
                                    229       229       458       458

     Less general and 
          administrative expenses    27        22        44        47
 
               NET INCOME          $202      $207      $414      $411
     


Per Share:
(1,510,000 average shares outstanding)

     Net Income                    $ .13     $ .14     $ .27     $ .27
     Cash Dividends                  .14       .14       .27       .27

</TABLE>
| INVESTOR CONTACTS:       |                                    |   | MEDIA CONTACT:       |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------|
| David Whitehouse         | Gregory Lundberg                        |   | Brigid Smith         |
| SVP & Treasurer      | Assistant Treasurer, Investor Relations |   | AVP Corp. Comm.      |
| (203) 614-5708           | (203) 614-5044                          |   | (203) 614-5042       |
| david.whitehouse@ftr.com | greg.lundberg@ftr.com                   |   | brigid.smith@ftr.com |
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




2005 Salaries; Annual Incentive Compensation Earned in 2004.



On March 1, 2005, the Board of Directors approved the following recommendations of the Executive
Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee regarding compensation of the Company’s executive
officers:




The 2005 salaries for Aqua America’s executive officers of $399,600 for Mr. DeBenedictis,
$238,454 for Mr. Stahl, $210,132 for Mr. Smeltzer, $196,112 for Mr. Riegler and $184,246 for
Mr. Hugus. Such salaries will become effective April 1, 2005.




The annual incentive compensation payouts under Aqua America’s 2004 Annual Cash Incentive
Compensation Plan of $330,000 for Mr. DeBenedictis, $90,872 for Mr. Stahl, $79,186 for Mr.
Smeltzer, $46,648 for Mr. Riegler, and $35,963 for Mr. Hugus.
#### April A. Usher et al., Respondents, v John Dean et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Evelyn Bland, Appellant, v Hi-Tech Combustion, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Kane, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Jiudice, J.), entered October 6, 1989 in Dutchess County, which, *inter alia,*granted a motion to change venue of action No. 2 from Bronx County to Dutchess County.

Two lawsuits underlie this appeal, both stemming from an automobile accident occurring in the Town of Pawling, Dutchess County, in June 1987. Evelyn Bland, plaintiff in action No. 2, was a passenger in a vehicle operated by defendant John Dean and owned by defendant Hi-Tech Combustion, Inc. April Ann Usher, plaintiff in action No. 1, was the owner and operator of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Bland commenced action No. 2 against Dean, Hi-Tech and Usher in Supreme Court, Bronx County. Usher, along with her husband, then commenced action No. 1 against Dean and Hi-Tech in Dutchess County. Dean and Hi-Tech then moved for consolidation of the actions for trial in Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Only the Ushers responded, opposing that part of the motion that sought consolidation and arguing instead in favor of a joint trial. Supreme Court ordered action No. 2 to be removed to Dutchess County for a joint trial. Bland now appeals.

We affirm. Bland’s sole contention on appeal is that Supreme Court improperly removed the action she commenced from Bronx County to Dutchess County. The gravamen of Bland’s argument is that hers was the first action commenced, and the opposing parties have failed to sufficiently prove the special circumstances needed to deviate from the general rule that venue for a joint trial should be placed in the county *785where the first action was instituted. In disagreeing with Bland, we initially note that absent a clear abuse of discretion, determinations made by Supreme Court regarding venue shall not be disturbed *(see, Bellomo Leasing Corp. v Frost,*90 AD2d 909, 910). Although, as Bland correctly argues, the general rule would require venue for the joint trial herein to be placed in Bronx County, where the first action was commenced *(see, Mitchel v Thacker,*159 AD2d 701; *Strasser v Neuringer,*137 AD2d 750, 751), it is our view that special circumstances existed to support Supreme Court’s use of discretion in placing venue in Dutchess County *(see, Perinton Assocs. v Heicklen Farms,*67 AD2d 832). The accident occurred in Dutchess County and the police officers who arrived at the scene, as well as the police reports generated from the accident, are located there. Given these facts and based on our review of the record, we cannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion.

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
* The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4140

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard, II, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 13, 2005 Filed: September 20, 2005

___________ Before RILEY, FAGG, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard, II pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. After Bevard’s conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Bevard later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, asserting his sentence violates Blakely . The district court * denied Bevard’s motion holding Blakely does not apply on collateral review. Bevard appeals asserting Blakelyand United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), should apply retroactively for three reasons. First, Bevard-2- contends Blakely and Booker did not create new procedural rules because their holdings were dictated by existing precedent. Second, Bevard argues that even if Blakely and Booker created a new procedural rule, it is a watershed rule implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of criminal proceedings. Third, Bevard argues Blakely and Booker created a substantive change in the law by changing the punishment available for the crime. Bevard’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent decision in Never Misses a Shot v. United States , 413 F.3d 781 (8 th Cir. 2005). Like all other circuits that have considered the issue, we held “the ‘new rule’ announced in Booker does not apply to criminal convictions that became final before the rule was announced, and thus does not benefit movants in collateral proceedings.” Id. at

___. We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Bevard’s motion.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1438-000]


New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

August 27, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 22, 2008, New York Independent System 
Operator, Inc. tendered for filing amendments to the Market 
Administration and Control Area Services Tariff, including Attachments 
C and J.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca8c8f988985a4a6a3a4af99bfbabaa5b8be8aacafb8a9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d79192859498b9bbbeb9b284a2a7a7b8a5a397b1b2a5b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 5, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-20506 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 15
                                                       ----------






The Board of Directors
Polaroid Corporation


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements No. 33-36384, No. 33-44661 and No. 33-
51173

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 17, 1995,
related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or
certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


Very truly yours,


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
November 13, 1995



                                   25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               94,672
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        49,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          23,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    176,588
<PP&E>                                            4,600,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,521,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      319,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               968,764
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                            159,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (809,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        319,211
<SALES>                                             251,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    265,915
<CGS>                                               280,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       280,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    168,666
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   18,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (198,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (198,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (198,428)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.12)
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6859 

To prohibit the use of rare earth minerals originating from Taliban-controlled 

Afghanistan in United States sold and manufactured components. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. BOST (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr. MCKINLEY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of rare earth minerals originating from 

Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in United States sold and 

manufactured components. 

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 ‘‘No Profits for Taliban5 Controlled Mines Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6859 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF RARE EARTH MINERALS 

2 ORIGINATING FROM TALIBAN-CONTROLLED 

3 AFGHANISTAN IN UNITED STATES SOLD AND 

4 MANUFACTURED COMPONENTS. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

6 President shall take such actions as may be necessary and 

7 appropriate to prohibit the use of rare earth minerals orig8 inating from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in United 

9 States sold and manufactured components. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS