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


                         
<ARTICLE>                                5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                    133,100,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                             255,700,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               12,900,000
<INVENTORY>                               351,700,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          782,300,000
<PP&E>                                    527,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (261,500,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,197,100,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     389,600,000
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                  300,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                 6,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (35,600,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,197,100,000
<SALES>                                 1,649,300,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,649,300,000
<CGS>                                   1,238,300,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,238,300,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          251,900,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         24,800,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           134,300,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               28,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       105,600,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              105,600,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    3.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    3.04
        



</TABLE>
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2007...... 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 7.6 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.0 2008...... 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.9 6.3 4.8 6.8 6.6 6.1 5.3 2009...... 4.8 5.0 4.2 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.8 5.6 5.4 4.5 2006: Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Q2... 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.4  Q3... 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.1  Q4... 7.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 7.4 2008: Q1... 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q2... 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.1 5.9 4.9 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.4  Q3... 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.5 6.3 4.7 6.6 6.6 6.1 4.9  Q4... 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5 4.0 6.1 6.1 5.6 4.3 2009: Q1... 5.1 5.8 4.1 5.5 5.4 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.0  Q2... 4.7 5.3 4.4 5.0 6.0 3.6 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.3  Q3... 4.7 5.0 3.9 5.0 5.8 3.8 5.8 5.7 5.4 4.1  Q4... 4.5 4.4 4.7 5.0 4.4 3.4 5.9 5.7 5.5 4.0 2010: Q1... 5.0 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.6 3.7 5.9 5.9 5.4 4.8  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.17

    GTECH CORPORATION PARTICIPANTS IN EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN


W. Bruce Turner

David Calabro

Jaymin Patel

Marc Crisafulli

Kathleen McKeough

Timothy Nyman

Larry Smith (terminated in January 2004) (1)

Donald Sweitzer

Antonio Carlos Rocha (terminated in August 2003)


-------

(1) Did not receive payment for fiscal 2004.
GK INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation

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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended September 30, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. Kimmons, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.ss. 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.



Dated: March 25, 2003                   /S/ Gary F. Kimmons
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        By: Gary F. Kimmons
                                        Its: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2003: Q3... 28 47 25 17 70 13 31 6

 Q4... 8 33 59 6 61 33 16 52004: Q1... 7 25 68 5 52 43 8 4 Q2... 2 37 61 2 55 42 5 4 Q3... 15 47 38 5 63 33 10 5 Q4... 20 30 50 5 56 40 11 42005: Q1... 17 34 48 5 53 42 16 3 Q2... 17 58 25 5 62 33 8 5 Q3... 33 61 6 9 68 23 28 6

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2003: Q3... 22 46 32 18 68 15 36 4

 Q4... 17 35 48 10 64 25 20 52004: Q1... 11 42 47 8 68 25 16 5 Q2... 11 49 40 9 65 26 15 6 Q3... 11 51 38 6 71 23 12 6 Q4... 10 40 50 5 60 35 9 52005: Q1... 12 48 40 5 59 36 12 5 Q2... 15 59 26 5 64 31 14 6 Q3... 35 52 14 15 54 31 34 5

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2003: Q3... 46 38 17 33 63 4 46 4

 Q4... 30 22 48 17 70 13 26 32004: Q1... 18 55 27 14 73 14 27 5 Q2... 13 43 43 0 70 30 22 4 Q3... 5 36 59 0 73 27 9 4 Q4... 17 30 52 13 57 30 13 42005: Q1... 27 55 18 14 68 18 23 5 Q2... 13 48 39 9 57 35 9 4 Q3... 24 38 38 19 62 19 29 5 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
#### Charles D. DOSS et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45722.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1972.

Edith Roberts, Austin, for appellants.

Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty-, and Michael J. McCormick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a bond forfeiture proceeding.

The appellants’ first four contentions are identical to the first four in Hall v. State, 485 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), this day decided.

For the reasons stated therein we find no merit in them.

Appellants’ fifth contention is that there is a fatal variance between the offense named in the bond and the offense described in the judgment nisi. The bond recites the offense charged to be: “Possession of Hashish (Fel.)” while the judgment nisi recites “A felony, to wit: Un*566lawful Possession of a Narcotic Drug, to wit: Hashish”.

Art. 725b, Sec. 1, Subsecs. (13) and (14), Vernon’s Ann.P.C., makes the possession of hashish unlawful and makes hashish a narcotic drug.

Appellants’ sixth contention is that the final judgment recites an impossible date for the date of the judgment nisi (September 3, 1972). An examination of the record reflects that the judgment nisi was entered on September 3, 1970. In accordance with the provision of Art. 44.24, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., the judgment is reformed to recite that the judgment nisi was entered on September 3, 1970. Carr v. State, 9 Tex.App. 463, and Robinson v. State, 11 Tex.App. 309.

As reformed the judgment is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: 

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Engineering (1170).                     

*Date/Time:*                         October 15, 2008: 12 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.; October 16, 2008: 8 a.m.-12 p.m.                     

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 375, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Shirah Pope, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 505, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                     

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and activities.                     

## Agenda 

### Wednesday, October 15 

                        Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation Update (EFRI)                               ( print page 56617)    

Discussion of Potential Future ENG Topics 

Overview of EHR Programs for Broadening Participation 

### Thursday, October 16 

Report from Subcommittee on Broadening Participation and Discussion 

Overview of the Division of Electrical Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS) 

ECCS Committee of Visitor's Report 

Discussion with Arden Bement, Director and Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, NSF 

Dated: September 23, 2008. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8-22753 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                          Item 6 (a), Exhibit 11

                Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC
            Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Common Share/Unit
                                 For the Periods

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  July 1, 2002              January 1, 2002
                                                                     through                    through
                                                               September 30, 2002         September 30, 2002
                                                               ------------------         ------------------
                                                                   (unaudited)                (unaudited)

<S>                                                            <C>                        <C>
Net Income (Loss)                                                    $(  68,273)                $  (330,236)
                                                                     ==========                 ===========

Weighted Average Number of Units Outstanding                          4,222,870                   4,223,639
                                                                      =========                 ===========

Earnings (Loss) per Unit                                             $    (0.02)                $     (0.08)
                                                                     ==========                 ===========

<CAPTION>
                                                                   July 1, 2001              January 1, 2001
                                                                      through                    through
                                                               September 30, 2001          September 30, 2001
                                                               ------------------          ------------------
                                                                   (unaudited)                 (unaudited)

<S>                                                            <C>                        <C>
Net Income (Loss)                                                    $ (138,915)                $(1,442,186)
                                                                     ==========                 ===========

Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding                  4,224,870                   4,217,756
                                                                     ==========                 ===========

Earnings (Loss) per Common Share                                     $    (0.03)                $     (0.34)
                                                                     ==========                 ===========
</TABLE>

                                       26
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alan Chin, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 661]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered March 30, 2004, convicting defendant, upon *462his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. In the early morning hours, on a deserted street in a drug-prone location, the police observed activity they recognized as a possible drug transaction, in which defendant made hand-to-hand contact with another individual who immediately placed his hand in his pocket. Defendant also exhibited nervous behavior upon approach of the police. The totality of these observations gave rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and justified a common-law inquiry *(see e.g. People v Hernandez,*3 AD3d 325 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 741 [2004]). When, in addition, the police observed a bulge under defendant’s outer clothing at his waistband, they were justified in conducting, at least, a limited patdown *(see e.g. People v Chin,*192 AD2d 413 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 1071 [1993]). When defendant resisted the patdown by struggling and attempting to flee, and when in the course of the struggle a package of cocaine immediately became dislodged, the officers’ plain view observation of contraband justified defendant’s arrest, which led to the lawful recovery of additional contraband *(see People v Bothwell,*261 AD2d 232 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1026 [1999]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2004...... 39.38 68.02 52.88 25.95 47.58 110.83 3.81 14.82 46.26 360.52 2005...... 40.42 69.13 47.05 26.41 63.49 99.94 3.83 14.62 47.14 333.02 2002: Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62  Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67 2003: Q1... 35.98 68.86 32.35 27.73 38.74 62.19 3.72 14.88 46.71 249.54  Q2... 24.61 43.91 32.67 18.01 28.73 55.73 3.72 14.67 48.45 241.93  Q3... 27.75 78.05 40.90 17.84 37.37 65.70 3.53 14.83 46.45 319.67  Q4... 35.13 79.92 42.70 23.13 28.16 75.70 4.11 14.85 47.42 313.07 2004: Q1... 45.07 60.59 43.04 35.57 56.02 98.51 3.86 15.02 47.24 341.06  Q2... 32.01 47.74 36.25 21.95 26.77 116.76 3.73 15.17 45.83 358.08  Q3... 33.42 32.56 62.64 18.04 42.06 143.63 3.76 14.56 44.91 359.39  Q4... 49.42 108.90 70.44 30.21 75.92 90.23 3.96 14.46 46.63 385.43 2005: Q1... 40.23 52.36 44.37 36.66 35.31 54.11 3.57 14.72 49.15 290.01  Q2... 42.75 70.57 38.44 23.68 78.69 132.29 3.95 14.60 46.31 371.83  Q3... 38.87 65.13 67.97 22.19 73.29 105.64 3.84 14.39 46.29 397.07  Q4... 39.08 83.40 41.58 24.45 43.37 97.49 3.92 14.83 46.73 270.45 2006: Q1... 43.76 45.56 49.62 37.78 39.28 96.24 3.81 15.09 47.28 288.50  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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

t0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147475

NEJLA ISRAEL,

Plaintiff /Count er Defendant

- Appellant,

v SC: 147475

COA: 316249

Macomb CC: 2011

- 002782

- CH

RAMIZ PUTRUS and NAJAH PUTRUS,

Defendants /Counter Plaintiffs

- Appellees

, and

RAMIZ PUTRUS and NAJAH PUTRUS,

Third

- Party Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v

FOUAD ZORA,

Third

- Party Defendant,

and

BI

- COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, P.C., and

UNIVERSAL URGENT CARE, P.C.,

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v

NEJLA ISRAEL and FOUAD ZORA,

Intervenor Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

ACUSON CORPORATION                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included (or incorporated by reference) in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-
29596, 33-43606, 33-59707 and 33-61691. It should be noted that we have not
audited any financial statements of the company subsequent to December 31, 1999,
or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP



San Jose, California
March 13, 2000
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1856

To provide relief from Federal tax liability arising from the settlement of

claims brought by African American farmers against the Department

of Agriculture for discrimination in farm credit and benefit programs

and to exclude amounts received under such settlement from meansbased determinations under programs funded in whole or in part with

Federal funds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 15, 2001

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide relief from Federal tax liability arising from the

settlement of claims brought by African American farmers against the Department of Agriculture for discrimination in farm credit and benefit programs and to exclude

amounts received under such settlement from meansbased determinations under programs funded in whole

or in part with Federal funds.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1856 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Black Farmer Fairness

3 Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY ARISING

5 FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS BY AFRI6 CAN AMERICAN FARMERS AGAINST THE DE7 PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR DISCRIMI8 NATION IN FARM CREDIT AND BENEFIT PRO9 GRAMS.

10 Notwithstanding any provision of the Internal Rev11 enue Code of 1986, in the case of a person who is certified

12 to be a member of the plaintiff class in the settlement of

13 the consolidated actions entitled ‘‘Pigford, et al. v. Glick14 man’’, No. 97–1978 (D.D.C.) (PLF), and ‘‘Brewington,

15 et al. v. Glickman’’ No. 98–1693 (D.D.C.) (PLF)—

16 (1) gross income for purposes of subtitle A of

17 such Code (relating to income taxes) shall not

18 include—

19 (A) any amount of a cash payment re20 ceived under such settlement, and

21 (B) any amount which (but for this sec22 tion) would be includible in gross income by

23 reason of the discharge of indebtedness pursu24 ant to such settlement, and

25 (2) no amount shall be includible in the gross

26 estate of any such person for purposes of chapter 11
3

•HR 1856 IH

1 of such Code (relating to estate taxes) by reason of

2 an interest in such settlement.

3 SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER PROGRAMS

4 FUNDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH FED5 ERAL FUNDS.

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with re7 spect to any calendar year in which a person receives an

8 amount under the settlement described in section 2, such

9 amount shall not—

10 (1) be considered income or resources in deter11 mining eligibility for,

12 (2) be used as a basis for denying or reducing

13 funds under, or

14 (3) be used as a basis for determining the

15 amount of assistance under,

16 any program funded in whole or in part with Federal

17 funds.

Æ