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

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE NEWPORT
NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 19, 2000, AND THE
RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 19,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-19-2000
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      117
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         55
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   574
<PP&E>                                           1,584
<DEPRECIATION>                                     881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              467
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,490
<SALES>                                            469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   469
<CGS>                                              423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     36
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 21
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        21
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63


</TABLE>
#### Jackie Wayne WHITLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45658.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 28, 1972.

J. Charles Whitfield, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

The conviction was for passing as true a forged instrument. The punishment was assessed at 5 years.

On September 7, 1971, the appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court. After the entry of the judgment on the same date, the appellant waived the time in which to file a motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment and was sentenced. Notice of appeal was given. The appeal bond was set at $500.00 and was duly executed. The appellant is free on bail.

There is no transcription of the court reporter’s notes in the record before us, and there are no bills of exception.

The appellant’s retained counsel filed a brief in the trial court which candidly states that the appeal was taken at the insistence of the appellant “for the purpose of obtaining time to handle personal affairs.”

No grounds of error are set forth as required by Article 40.09 § 9, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

Nothing is presented for review.

While the candor of appellant’s counsel is appreciated, the bench and the bar should discourage appeals which are taken for the sake of delay alone. Our criminal appellate system is already overburdened without the necessity of taking time to dispose of appeals for delay only.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., not participating.
H. Res. 885 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 18, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Latta. 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Blunt, to 

rank after Mr. Fossella. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. Wittman of Virginia. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Mr. Latta 

and Mr. Wittman of Virginia. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Pacific  Financial  Corporation's  officers  participate  in  a  cash  incentive
compensation plan that provides for year-end bonuses  calculated under a formula
based on the  corporation's  equity as of the  beginning of the year. No bonuses
are paid unless the corporation's  pre-tax return on equity for the year, before
taking into account income taxes, accrual for incentive payments,  extraordinary
revenues or expenses not directly  associated with normal bank  operations,  and
certain other items,  exceeds the  percentage  amount  calculated by dividing 16
percent by 1 minus the  corporation's  effective tax rate. If the pre-tax return
on equity threshold is reached, the corporation  contributes to the bonus pool a
dollar  amount  equal to 5 percent of earnings  yielding a 15 percent  return on
equity,  10 percent of any amount above 15 percent up to a 20 percent  return on
equity, and 15 percent of the amount attributable to a return on equity above 20
percent.  The bonus pool is paid out to the  officers  based on their  levels of
responsibility.
#### WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., Appellant, v. PLANTATION FOODS, INC., Appellee.

No. 5182.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Oct. 12, 1972.

*952Tabor, Fowler & Allen, Irving, for appellant.

Beard & Kultgen, Thomas L. Cook, Waco, for appellee.

OPINION

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant Watkins from summary judgment against it for $927.50 (plus $27.84 interest).

Plaintiff Plantation sued defendant Watkins alleging defendant owed plaintiff $409.24, $471.40, and $46.86 (totaling $927.-50) for the lease by plaintiff of a trailer-tractor to defendant.

Defendant’s Second Amended Answer does not contain a general denial, but pleads affirmative defense that the cargo hauled was spoiled on arrival for which reason plaintiff was liable for damaged merchandise.

In answer to plaintiff’s requests for admissions defendant admitted it withheld from plaintiff the sum of $927.50, on the three leases.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s comptroller made affidavit that defendant owed plaintiff $927.50, on three leases of tractor-trailer equipment.

Defendant answered plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment asserting the material shipped was delivered in “off condition” for which reason “plaintiff is responsible to defendant for damages incurred and has no claim against defendant”.

The trial court entered summary judgment for plaintiff for $955.34 ($927.50 plus $27.84 interest to date of judgment).

Defendant appeals on one point: “The trial court erred in granting (plaintiff’s) motion for summary judgment because (plaintiff) did not establish by competent summary judgment proof its right to recover as a matter of law”.

Plaintiff plead its entitlement from defendant to $927.50 for three tractor-trailer leases. Defendant did not deny the leases or the amount alleged to be due. The summary judgment record reflects affidavit of plaintiff’s comptroller that defendant owes plaintiff the $927.50; and defendant in answer to requests for admissions admitted withholding the $927.50 due on the leases.

Material allegations of fact in plaintiff’s petition which are not denied by proper pleading are taken as admitted. Brill v. Guaranty State Bank, Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 537; McGuire v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., NWH, 443 S.W.2d 619.

Defendant’s pleading and its answer to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment are not summary judgment evidence. Hidalgo v. Surety Savings & Loan Ass’n., Tex., 462 S.W.2d 540. Lancaster v. Wynnewood State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., NWH, 470 S.W.2d 78.

*953And when facts entitling the moving party to summary judgment have been established, as here, the motion will not be denied merely because the opposite party has alleged matters in pleadings, which if proved, would require that a different judgment be rendered. Kuper v. Schmidt, 161 Tex. 189, 338 S.W.2d 948; Molsen v. Compania Industrial, Tex.Civ.App., NWH, 304 S.W.2d 271.

Defendant’s point is overruled.

Affirmed.
815 A.2d 960

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARIA P. FORNARO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 041281989).

February 24, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-260, recommending that MARIA P. FORNARO of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, and who has been suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Orders of this Court since March 24, 1998, be disbarred for violating *RPC*1.7(b) (conflict of interest), *RPC*3.3(a)(5) (failure to disclose material fact to a tribunal), *RPC*3.7(a) (failure to withdraw when lawyer may be called as witness), *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation), *Rule*1:20-20(5) (use of attorney letterhead while suspended), and *Rule*1:20-20(10) (turning a pending matter over to another attorney during suspension);

And MARIA P. FORNARO having been ordered to show cause why she should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARIA P. FORNARO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall enroll in and successfully complete (1) the Skills and Methods Core Courses offered by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education, (2) eight hours of courses in professional responsibility approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, and (3) a course in law office management approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

*451ORDERED that within thirty days after the filing date of this Order, respondent shall arrange to be evaluated by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, and if said professional recommends counseling or treatment for respondent, respondent shall participate in the recommended counseling or treatment until discharged and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall demonstrate that she is fit to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of an attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of three years, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoyed from practicing law during the period of suspension and that she continue to comply with Rule 1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00382-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GABRIEL E. SILVA,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On May 15, 2012, the court conducted a telephonic setting conference to set a

hearing on defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Indictment For Violation of Speedy Trial

Act [#22]2 filed March 23, 2012. After conferring with counsel and with their consent,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That on June 6, 2012, commencing at 10:00 a.m., the court shall hear oral

argument on Motion To Dismiss Indictment For Violation of Speedy Trial Act, the

court reserving one (1) hour for the hearing; and

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for this hearing. 

Dated: May 15, 2012

1

 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

2 “[#22]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.
AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC.
                               80 Grasslands Road
                               Elmsford, NY 10523

                                December 1, 1999

Mr. James M. Harrison
16 High Street
East Williston, New York 11596

               Re: Amendment of Employment Agreement

Dear Jim:

     In  connection  with the  employment  agreement  dated August 10, 1997 (the
"Employment  Agreement")  between James M. Harrison (the "Executive") and Amscan
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  the parties hereto agree that Paragraph 4(a) of
the  Employment  Agreement is hereby amended to provide that with respect to the
termination of the  Restricted  Period as to  Executive's  remaining  Restricted
Stock  (which  was to be  released  from the  Restricted  Period  in  increments
commencing  on January 1, 2000),  the  Restricted  Period shall  continue  until
January 1, 2007, unless the Restricted Period sooner terminates as to all of the
Restricted Stock upon the occurrence of any of the "earlier  termination" events
set forth in Paragraph  4(a)  (including  upon the  nonrenewal of the Employment
Agreement by the Company).

     Except as specifically set forth herein,  all other terms of the Employment
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

     If the foregoing meets with your understanding, please execute the enclosed
copy of this letter and return same to the undersigned.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC.

                                            By:   /s/ GERALD C. RITTENBERG
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Name:
                                                  Title:

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO AS OF
THIS 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999:

/s/ JAMES M. HARRISON
------------------------------
James M. Harrison
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-0-2487-LTB-KLM

NICOLE BAROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

_______________________________________________________________________

Upon Defendant’s Response to Show Cause Order Regarding Diversity Jurisdiction

(Doc 9 - filed October 18, 2011), it is

ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause (Doc 6) is DISCHARGED.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: October 19, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02487-LTB Document 10 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02585-WYD-KLM 

MARIA RIVERA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation For Dismissal With 

Prejudice [ECF No. 45], filed on November 12, 2012. After carefully reviewing the 

above-captioned case, I find that the stipulation should be approved and this case 

should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the FEDERAL RULES of 

CIVIL PROCEDURE. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice [ECF No. 

45], filed on November 12, 2012, is APPROVED. In accordance therewith, this matter 

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party bears its own attorney fees and costs. 

DATED: November 20, 2012. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

 Wiley Y. Daniel 

 Chief U.S. District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02585-WYD-KLM Document 46 Filed 11/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
# National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2008

Our Nation has a moral obligation to work to prevent domestic violence and address its brutal and destructive effects.  During National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we underscore our commitment to helping individuals across our country who face such devastating violence.

My Administration remains dedicated to eradicating domestic violence and helping victims find the compassion, comfort, and healing they need.  In 2003, I announced the creation of the Family Justice Center Initiative to help local communities provide comprehensive services at one location for victims of domestic violence.  In 2006, I was proud to sign legislation that reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act to improve criminal justice responses to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.  The Department of Justice's Domestic Violence Transitional Housing Assistance Program also offers victims of violence counseling and transitional housing services so they can escape the cycle of abuse.

During this month, we rededicate ourselves to protecting vulnerable members of our society and ensuring domestic abusers are punished to the full extent of the law.  We encourage victims of domestic violence and their families to seek assistance through Family Justice Centers and the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE.  Together, we can help heal hearts and build a culture in which all Americans can pursue their dreams and realize the great promise of our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2008, as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  I urge all Americans to reach out to victims of domestic violence and take action to make ending domestic violence a national priority.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E8-23730

Billing code 3195-W9-P
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The City of Clairton, PA :

:

v. : No. 1757 C.D. 2019

:

Zoning Hearing Board of the City of :

Clairton, PA, and Cornerstone :

Residence, Inc. :

:

Cornerstone Residence, Inc. :

:

v. :

:

Zoning Hearing Board of the City of :

Clairton, PA and George Glagola, :

City of Clairton Zoning Officer :

:

Appeal of: City of Clairton, PA and :

George Glagola :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, March 25, 2021

, having considered A ppellant s ’ application for

reargument and A ppellee Cornerstone Residence, Inc.’s answer in response thereto

,

the application is denied.
Exhibit 21

                          TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.
                             LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES


Subsidiaries of TransFinancial Holdings, Inc.        State of Incorporation
---------------------------------------------        ----------------------


TFH Logistics & Transportation Services, Inc.                   Kansas

     Subsidiaries of TFH Logistics & Transportation Services, Inc.
     -------------------------------------------------------------

     Crouse Cartage Company                                     Iowa

     Specialized Transport, Inc.                                Kansas

     Phoenix Computer Services, Inc.                            Kansas

     Custom Client Services, Inc.                               North Carolina

     Transport Brokerage, Inc.                                  North Carolina

American Freight System, Inc.
 (d/b/a AFS, Inc.)                                              Delaware

TFH Properties, Inc.                                            Kansas

Universal Premium Acceptance Corporation                        Missouri

     Subsidiary of Universal Premium Acceptance Corporation
     ------------------------------------------------------

     APR Funding Corporation                                    Delaware

UPAC of California, Inc.                                        California

TransFinancial Acceptance, Inc.                                 Kansas

Presis, L.L.C.                                                  Kansas




(All companies do business under same name unless otherwise indicated).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00343

- CV

Brittany RETLEDGE and Arnold Lamotte, Jr.

, Appellant s

v.

Misty SANTANA, Appellee

From the County Court at L aw No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CV04147 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants , proceeding pro se, seek to appeal the county court’s judgment of eviction signed on May 17, 2019

. Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record were filed on J uly 15 , 2019 and July 22, 2019, respectively

. Appellant s ’ brief was therefore due to be filed on August 21, 2019 , but neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed. The clerk of this court notified appellant s that the appellant s ’ b rief was late and that either the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief should be filed on or before September 30, 2019

. Appellants responded by filing a motion for extension of time to file the ir appellants’ brief. The motion for ext ension was granted and the deadline for filing the appellants’ brief was extended to November 22, 2019 , with a notation stating

, “No further extensions absent extenuating circumstances

. ” To date, the appellant s ’ brief has not been filed.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant s show cause in writing within fifteen (1 5 ) days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of December, 2019

.

________________________________ ___ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
#### HANES v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.