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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         382,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  787,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,081
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,396,396
<PP&E>                                       1,089,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,821,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,987,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       311,533
<OTHER-SE>                                     275,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,821,827
<SALES>                                      2,902,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,902,294
<CGS>                                        1,676,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,676,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,179,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,155)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 472 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments 

in the State of Nevada except by express authorization of Congress, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2013 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 

monuments in the State of Nevada except by express 

authorization of Congress, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

5 THE STATE OF NEVADA. 

6 The proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

7 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 

8 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Ne9 vada’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 472 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ENFORCEMENT OF SECRETARIAL 

2 ORDER NO. 3310 IN NEVADA WITHOUT CON3 GRESSIONAL APPROVAL. 

4 Except by express authorization of Congress, the Sec5 retary of the Interior shall not implement, administer, or 

6 enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310, issued by the Sec7 retary of the Interior on December 22, 2010. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Smith *v.*Board of Education of Floyd County; *et vice versa.*

Hines, J.

This case arose under the land-registration act. It was referred to an examiner or auditor, who filed with the clerk of the court his conclusions of law and fact. Smith filed exceptions to certain of the auditor’s conclusions of law and of fact. The judge approved the ex*536ceptions to the findings of fact, but reserved his decision upon the exceptions to the conclusions of law. The exceptions to the auditor’s findings of fact were submitted to a jury, which sustained these findings of fact. Smith made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. The respondent in th'e motion filed a cross-bill of exceptions. Smith did not except to any judgment upon his exceptions to the auditor’s conclusions of law, or to a final judgment in the case. *Held:*

Nos. 6541, 6554.

June 13, 1928.

Land registration. Before Judge Maddox. Floyd superior court. March 10, 1928.

*M. B.*Súbanles, for plaintiff in error in main bill of exceptions.

*George A. H.*Harris, contra.

1. The judgment overruling the motion for new trial was not a final judgment to which a writ of error will lie to this court; it not appearing that any judgment was rendered by the court upon the exceptions to the auditor’s findings of law, and there being no exception to any judgment rendered in favor of the applicant for registration. *Huson*v. *Bank of Covington,*158 *Ga.*434 (123 S. E. 742).

2. The losing party in the motion for new trial, to set aside a verdict sustaining the auditor’s findings of fact, should have excepted pendente lite to the judgment refusing a new trial, upon which error could be assigned in a bill of exceptions tendered after the final disposition of the case, and assigning error upon the final judgment therein. *Whitton*v. *Barrow,*159 *Ga.*57 (124 S. E. 874). The ease differs from *Alred*v. *Alred,*164 *Ga.*186 (137 S. E. 823), in which we held that a judgment overruling a motion for new trial, after verdict, is a final judgment on which a writ of error lies, although no judgment on the verdict has been entered; the principle therein announced being applicable where the verdict is a general one and has the effect of finally disposing of the case.

3. Leave is granted to treat the official copies of the bills of exceptions as exceptions pendente lite.

*Writs of error dismissed, icillh direction.*

*All lite Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. ROTH, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs:
       Robert F. Rider, of Delaware, to be a Governor of the 
     United States Postal Service for the term expiring December 
     8, 2004.

  (The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that he be 
confirmed.)

                          ____________________
```
#### Travellers’ Ins. Co. v. J. R. Houston.

(No. 2975.)

Appeal from Hunt County.

Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins, counsel for appellant.

Mathews & Neyland, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 429. *Accident insurance; stipulation in policy of, as to intentional injury, construed; case stated.*This is a suit by appellee against appellant upon an accident insurance policy issued to Robert Davidson, insuring against said Davidson’s death by accident. Appellee recovered judgment for the full amount of the policy, $1,000, and for costs.

In the policy of insurance it is agreed and stipulated that “said policy shall not cover intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person.” This stipulation is valid and binding. [Bliss on Ins. § 82; United States v. Roberson, 9 Peters, 319; Travellers’ Ins. Co. v. McConkey, 127 U. S. 661.]

The facts of the case are that Davidson, the assured, was killed by one Russell. At the time of the killing Russell was intoxicated; but the evidence fails to show that he was insane, or so bereft of reason as to not know the nature and consequences of the act he was about to commit and did commit. It fails to show that he did not commit the act intentionally, or was mentally incapable at the time of forming a criminal intent. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that he killed Davidson intentionally, and with an understanding of the *509nature and consequences of the act. The insanity which will render an act unintentional, and entitle the act to be regarded as accidental, within the meaning of said stipulation in the policy, must be such mental derangement as deprives the person committing the act of sufficient capacity to understand the nature of the act and the consequences which will result from it; and the burden of proof to show this condition of Russell’s mind at the time he killed Davidson devolved upon appellee. [Bliss on Ins. § 229 *et seq.;*Ins. Co. v. McConkey, 127 U. S. 661.] The evidence does not support the finding that the death of Davidson was *accidental,*and therefore the judgment is not warranted by the evidence.

November 21, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Terry WEAVER, Appellant, v. Edwin G. BUSS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D11-2774.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 9, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 2011.

Terry Weaver, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of June 24, 2011, as well as the record on appeal, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to seek review after a final order disposing of the appellant’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been rendered. All pending motions are denied.

BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.
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, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

d0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

145685(12)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145685

COA: 308509

Houghton CC: 91-001053-FC

CARLO VARTINELLI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 26, 

2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
News United States Air Force
 Commission seeks service members' compensation preferencesPublished June 3, 2014
                        
                        
                        American Forces Press Service
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The commission tasked by President Barack Obama and Congress to modernize military compensation and benefits programs is seeking input from service members on their preferences.

Alphonso Maldon Jr., chairman of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, said understanding service members' compensation preferences is central to the commission's effort to craft modernization recommendations.

"Our primary goal is to ensure the uniformed services can maintain the most professional all-volunteer force, provide for a high quality of life for the members of the uniformed services and their families, and ensure that compensation and retirement systems are financially sustainable," he said. "Our fundamental objective is to craft an integrated compensation and personnel system that will continue to be valued by service members, provide flexibility for the uniformed services, and be cost effective."

To obtain these preferences, the commission will survey a number of active-duty, National Guard and reserve service members during the next few months, with plans to survey retired service members as well. The survey will ask participants to value individual elements of their compensation package in relation to each other, Maldon said.

"If you receive this survey, please take it," he added. "However, the survey is not the only way to let us know your preferences." People can provide input on the commission's public website, http://www.mcrmc.gov, and written comments may be mailed to the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, Post Office Box 13170, Arlington, VA 22209.

"These tools are powerful ways to ensure we are aware of your preferences and concerns," Maldon said.

Over the past year, he noted, the commission has benefitted from meetings with service members, veterans, retirees and their family members. "Additionally," he said, "representatives of the uniformed services, military and veterans service organizations, and other subject-matter experts have greatly added to our understanding of the breadth of current military compensation and benefit systems. These engagements have reinforced what we've always known: Our people are the strength of our uniformed services."

Maldon added, "We honor your service and ask for your continued input and support as we move forward with this important endeavor."President Obama 



Congress 



modernize 



Alphonso Maldon Jr. 



military compensation
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1



                             FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P.
             COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
                          PREFERRED UNIT DISTRIBUTIONS
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    1999           1998           1997          1996            1995
                                                ------------    ----------    -----------    ----------     -----------
<S>                                             <C>             <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>
Income from Operations Before  Disposition
of Interest Rate Protection Agreements
and Restructuring Charge...................     $   126,073     $   98,400    $    53,519    $   53,519     $   53,519

Plus: Interest Expense and Amortization
of Interest Rate Protection Agreements
and Deferred Financing Costs...............          78,094         69,713         25,468        25,468         25,468
                                                ------------    ----------    -----------    ----------     -----------

Earnings Before Disposition of Interest
Rate Protection Agreements, Restructuring
Charge and Fixed Charges...................     $   204,167     $  168,113    $    78,987    $   78,987     $   78,987
                                                ============    ==========    ===========    ==========     ===========

Fixed Charges and Preferred Unit
Distributions (a)..........................     $   112,586     $  100,047    $    34,555    $   34,555     $   34,555
                                                ============    ==========    ===========    ==========     ===========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
Preferred Unit Distributions (b)...........            1.81x          1.68x         2.29x          2.29x          2.29x
                                                ============    ==========    ===========    ==========     ===========
</TABLE>


(a)      There were no preferred limited partnership distributions in respect of
         any period prior to the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 1997

(b)      For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges and
         preferred unit distributions, earnings have been calculated by adding
         fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest) to income from
         operations before disposition of interest rate protection agreements
         and restructuring charge. Fixed charges consist of interest costs,
         whether expensed or capitalized and amortization of interest rate
         protection agreements and deferred financing charges.
758 A.2d 655

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Richard D. GOLDBERG, Respondent.

No. 570 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 1, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2000, there having been filed with this Court by Richard D. Goldberg his verified Statement of Resignation dated June 20, 2000, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Richard D. Goldberg be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1095 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1095

 To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for 
  any population control or population planning program or any family 
                           planning activity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2007

 Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Feeney, and Mr. 
    Garrett of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for 
  any population control or population planning program or any family 
                           planning activity.

    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 ``Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING FOR POPULATION CONTROL.

    No Federal official may expend any Federal funds for any population 
control or population planning program or any family planning activity 
(including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such 
program or activity is foreign or domestic.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, ROBERT L. MILLER, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CVF Technologies
Corporation;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, result of operation and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
     material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this Annual Report is being
     prepared;

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

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

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

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

Dated:  April 7, 2006

                                        CVF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION


                                        /s/ Robert L. Miller
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        ROBERT L. MILLER
                                        Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of VSUS Technologies Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kyle Gotshalk, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: April 15, 2010By:/s/ Kyle GotshalkKyle GotshalkChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 8.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF IONA TECHNOLOGIES PLC

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           Subsidiary                       Country of Incorporation
           ----------                       ------------------------
           <S>                              <C>
           IONA Technologies, Inc.              US
           IONA Technologies Pty. Limited       Australia
           IONA Technologies Finance            Cayman Islands
           IONA Technologies China Limited      China
           IONA Technologies GmbH               Germany
           IONA Technologies UK Limited         UK
           IONA Technologies Sarl               France
           IONA Technologies Singapore          Singapore
           IONA Technologies Japan              Japan
           IONA Technologies Italia Srl         Italy
           IONA Technologies (Suisse) SA        Switzerland
           IONA Technologies (Belgium) SA       Belgium
           IONA Technologies Netherlands BV     The Netherlands
           IONA Technologies Spain, S.L.        Spain
           IONA Technologies Korea Limited      Korea
           IONA Research (Ireland) Limited      Ireland
           Genesis Development Corporation      US
           Object-Oriented Concepts, Inc.       US
           Object-Oriented Concepts Gmbh        Germany
           Netfish Technologies, Inc.           US
</TABLE>