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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>                      The Dress Barn Inc.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-27-1996
<CASH>                                         9517302
<SECURITIES>                                   81787882
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    89790984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183865977
<PP&E>                                         147408206
<DEPRECIATION>                                 66503707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265722687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          61136221
<BONDS>                                        3500000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1178673
<OTHER-SE>                                     197917231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265722687
<SALES>                                        515522451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               515522451
<CGS>                                          337998321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150852173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3343202)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                30015159
<INCOME-TAX>                                   11106000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            18909159
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   18909159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .84
        


</TABLE>
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1996...... 2.22 .18 .17 1.38 .14 .36 1.33 .48 .31 .11 1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2006...... 1.37 .11 .11 .92 .11 .11 .57 .36 .30 .13 2007...... 1.34 .09 .11 .90 .12 .13 .51 .38 .32 .14 2004: Q4... 1.44 .12 .13 .95 .10 .15 .67 .33 .32 .13 2005: Q1... 1.37 .10 .12 .94 .07 .14 .68 .29 .28 .12  Q2... 1.79 .11 .10 1.26 .14 .18 .97 .40 .28 .15  Q3... 1.52 .05 .09 1.10 .14 .14 .83 .33 .27 .10  Q4... 1.19 .12 .13 .77 .07 .09 .57 .27 .24 .11 2006: Q1... 1.53 .12 .13 1.06 .11 .11 .76 .31 .30 .16  Q2... 1.56 .10 .12 1.08 .13 .13 .62 .45 .34 .15  Q3... 1.23 .11 .08 .82 .10 .12 .48 .37 .27 .11  Q4... 1.13 .12 .10 .73 .08 .09 .42 .31 .29 .12 2007: Q1... 1.19 .08 .10 .79 .11 .12 .42 .32 .29 .17  Q2... 1.56 .08 .12 1.09 .13 .14 .63 .45 .35 .13  Q3... 1.25 .08 .08 .84 .12 .13 .49 .36 .28 .11  Q4... 1.37 .11 .15 .86 .10 .14 .50 .38 .34 .15 2008: Q1... 1.25 .09 .10 .83 .09 .13 .41 .36 .30 .18  Q2... 1.45 .07 .11 1.01 .10 .16 .54 .38 .36 .17  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### Ocean Partners, LLC, Appellant, v North River Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[810 NYS2d 430]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered November 9, 2004, which granted defendant North River Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly rejected plaintiffs argument that the notice of loss filed by its managing agent—which was listed as a separate insured under the building’s insurance policy—satis*515fled plaintiffs own obligation, as an insured, to supply prompt notice of its particular damage claims. The record fails to establish a principal-agent relationship between these two entities. In fact, the building agent’s property manager testified that he had no authority to act on plaintiffs behalf. The record reflects that the managing agent and plaintiff had separate interests in the building and disparate claims to assert in connection with the fire. Ultimately, the managing agent unilaterally withdrew its claim when its $5,000 deductible was not met.

Plaintiffs failure to provide notice of its claim until 28 months after the fire constituted an unreasonable delay and a failure to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage under the policy *(Travelers Ins. Co. v Volmar Constr. Co.,*300 AD2d 40 [2002]). The insurer’s actual knowledge of the fire at the subject building did not reheve plaintiff of its independent obligation to give timely notice of its own claims *(id.*at 44). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ. *[See*6 Misc 3d 1013(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 51785(U) (2004).]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 866 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 22, 2008.
Whereas the estimated street value of the cocaine seized by the Coast Guard in 
        2007 is more than $4,700,000,000 or nearly half of the Coast Guard's 
        annual budget;
Whereas the Coast Guard's at sea drug interdictions are making a difference in 
        the lives of American citizens evidenced by the reduced supply of 
        cocaine in more than 35 major cities throughout the United States;
Whereas keeping illegal drugs from reaching our shores where they undermine 
        American values and threaten families, schools, and communities 
        continues to be an important national priority;
Whereas through robust interagency teamwork, collaboration with international 
        partners, and ever-more effective tools and tactics, the Coast Guard has 
        seized more than 2,000,000 pounds of cocaine during the past 10 years 
        and will continue to tighten the web of detection and interdiction at 
        sea; and
Whereas the Coast Guard men and women who, while away from family and hundreds 
        of miles from our shores, execute this dangerous mission, as well as 
        other vital maritime safety, security, and environmental protection 
        missions, with quiet dedication and without want of public recognition, 
        continue to show dedication and selfless service in protecting the 
        Nation and the American people: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives honors the United 
States Coast Guard, with its proud 217 year legacy of maritime law enforcement 
and border protection, along with the brave men and women whose efforts clearly 
demonstrate the honor, respect, and devotion to duty that ensures America's 
parents can sleep soundly knowing the Coast Guard is on patrol.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-127-01-SM

Holly Herrick

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. 

Ms. Herrick has tested positive for heroin and/or cocaine on

September 19, November 4, and today, November 12, 2008. She has

already pled guilty on the underlying charges. Given the number

of failed opportunities to comply with conditions I find that the

defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of

conditions. The conditions of release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

Case 1:08-cr-00127-SM Document 19 Filed 11/12/08 Page 1 of 2
2

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 12, 2008 

cc: Charles J. Keefe, Esq.

 Terry Ollila, AUSA

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00127-SM Document 19 Filed 11/12/08 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      23**








Consent
                of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
      Statements:





(1)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-79561),


(2)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-82805),


(3)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51188),


(4)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51190),


(5)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51192),


(6)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103625),


(7)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103626), and


(8)
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132281)





of
      our
      reports dated May 12, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements and schedule of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and the effectiveness
      of internal control over financial reporting of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.,
      included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 29,
      2008.







/s/
                  ERNST & YOUNG LLPERNST
                  & YOUNG LLPMelville, New York
                May
                    12, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2175 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2175

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                 To protect infants who are born alive.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2175

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                 To protect infants who are born alive.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as 
              including born-alive infant
    ``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human 
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of 
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect 
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion 
or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of 
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a 
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of 
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a 
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced 
abortion.
    ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, 
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any 
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born 
alive' as defined in this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including 
                            born-alive infant.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Dean BOONE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4857.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 15, 2003.

Decided Aug. 7, 2003.

*228Teresa L. Norris, Center for Capital Litigation, Columbia, South Carolina; John F. Hardaway, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary Dean Boone appeals his convictions and sentence for one count of being a felon transporting a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) and one count of maliciously damaging and destroying by means of explosive a vehicle used in interstate commerce in which a death resulted in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2000). Boone’s counsel contends the district court made two evidentiary errors. Specifically, counsel claims the district court erred by (1) admitting evidence of his “swinger” lifestyle, and (2) admitting statements made by the murder victim. Boone has filed a motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, which we grant.

A district court’s rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Bostian,*59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir.1995). We will find an abuse of discretion only if the district court’s evidentiary ruling was arbitrary or irrational. *United States v. Achiekwelu,*112 F.3d 747, 753 (4th Cir.1997). Evidentiary rulings are also subject to review for harmless error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, and will be found harmless if *229the reviewing court can conclude “without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” *United States v. Nyman,*649 F.2d 208, 211-12 (4th Cir. 1980) (quoting *Kotteakos v. United States,*328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).

With regard to evidence of Boone’s lifestyle, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion. With regard to the decision to admit the victim’s statements, we find any error harmless. Given the substantial evidence supporting the conviction for bombing, we find the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.

While we grant Boone’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, we find the issues raised in the brief are without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We grant Boone’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We deny his motion for a hearing en banc. 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.*
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 3

- 3367

_____________________________
K ERRICK C RUMITIE ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

July 17, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. Granville v. State , 382 So. 3d 792, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)

.
R OWE , R AY , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Kerrick Crumitie, pro se, Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
#### Pawel Czernicki, Appellant, v Marek Lawniczak, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 876]

In an action, inter alia, to partition real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated February 15, 2005, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to serve and file a late motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve and file a summary judgment motion more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed. The plaintiff failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the more than two-year delay in making the motion *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Brill v City of New York, 2*NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Whether there is merit to the late motion for summary judgment is not a relevant consideration *(see Rivera v Toruno,*19 AD3d 473 [2005]; *Thompson v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*10 AD3d 650 [2004]; *Dettmann v Page,*18 AD3d 422 [2005]). While significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for the delay in making a motion for summary judgment *(see*
      *582
      *Herrera v Felice Realty Corp.,*22 AD3d 723 [2005]; *Cooper v Hodge,*13 AD3d 1111 [2004]; *Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95*NY2d 124, 129 [2000]), such circumstances do not exist in this case. No excuse was offered by the plaintiff as to why it took more than 2V2 years to complete whatever discovery remained after the note of issue was filed before application was made for leave to serve and file a summary judgment motion. “No excuse at all, or a perfunctory excuse, cannot be good cause” *(Brill v City of New York, supra*at 652; *see also Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co.,*19 AD3d 360, 361 [2005]).

We note that both the plaintiffs attorney’s reply affirmation and the defendant’s deposition transcript excerpts attached as an exhibit thereto and included in the record on appeal are dehors the record and were not considered on this appeal *(see Shuler v Dupree,*14 AD3d 548 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000717238
<NAME> MACNEAL SCHWENDLER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,086
<SECURITIES>                                    16,073
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,609
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,915
<PP&E>                                          36,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,162
<BONDS>                                         56,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,482
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,283
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,850
<CGS>                                           25,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (620)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,411
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,919
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        

</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending January 31, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodINDEPENDENT BANK CORP.                                                                                                  * 3A5
Case 1:08-cv-00504-PB   Document 141   Filed 08/17/10   Page 1 of 1