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

<ARTICLE>    5
<CURRENCY>     U.K. POUNDS
       
<S>                                          <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.70
<CASH>                                         86,363,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,279,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,204,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,932,000
<PP&E>                                        364,693,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,205,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                510,249,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         133,841,000
<BONDS>                                       246,677,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          501,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    126,668,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  510,249,000
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               56,532,000
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,147,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               28,263,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             26,751,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,507,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,507,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,507,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.89)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 2001       2000       1999
                                               --------   --------   --------
<S>                                            <C>        <C>        <C>
Income from Operations .....................   $105,830   $104,386   $126,073

Plus: Interest Expense and Amortization
of Deferred Financing Costs ................     80,583     82,568     78,094
                                               --------   --------   --------

Earnings Before Fixed Charges ..............   $185,913   $186,954   $204,167
                                               ========   ========   ========

Fixed Charges ..............................   $ 90,533    $87,771   $ 83,662
                                               ========   ========   ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (a) .....      2.05x      2.13x      2.44x
                                               ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>

(a)      For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges,
         earnings have been calculated by adding fixed charges (excluding
         capitalized interest) to income from operations. Fixed charges consist
         of interest costs, whether expensed or capitalized, and amortization
         and deferred financing charges.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CARPENTRY CONTRACTORS, INC., Respondent.

No. 00-1925.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 4, 2001.

Before KRUPANSKY, NORRIS, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

*CONSENT JUDGMENT*

This court on September 24, 1999, in Case No. 99-5925, 1999 WL 775934, entered its judgment enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) in Board Case No. 7-CA41464, 1999 WL 251855 against respondent Carpentry Contractors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns. By a stipulation dated May 8, 2000, the parties consented to the entry of a supplemental order by the Board and the entry of a consent judgment by this court enforcing such supplemental order. The Board, which filed its supplemental order on June 29, 2000, now applies to this court for enforcement of that order by means of a consent judgment pursuant to the terms of the stipulation.

Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Board’s application for entry of consent judgment is granted. The respondent Carpentry Contractors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take *283the following affirmative action which the Board has found necessary to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended:

(a) Make whole John E. Davis for loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of $10,734.96 in eleven (11) monthly installments. Each installment will be due in the offices of the Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board on a monthly basis beginning 21 days after the Board adopts the stipulation. The first ten (10) installments shall be in the amount of $1,000 (one thousand dollars). The final payment shall be for $ 734.96 (seven hundred thirty-four dollars and ninety-six cents).

(b) Respondent agrees to make normal payroll deductions for federal income tax, state income tax, city income tax, if any, and social security tax. Respondent agrees to make its matching FICA contributions. Respondent agrees not to make any deductions for tax purposes from the interest portion of the amount due. Respondent agrees to submit a list indicating these deductions with each payment.

(c) If any installment other than the final installment is not paid on or before its due date, the full unpaid balance shall become immediately due and payable and the Board may, without further notice, institute proceedings against the respondent for the collection of the full indebtedness remaining due, with additional interest due on the entire unpaid balance from the date of default until full payment is received, computed in accordance with the formula set forth in *New Horizons for the Retarded, Inc.,*283 N.L.R.B. 1173, 1987 WL 89652 (1987).
Exhibit 11.1

U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc.  Calculation of Net Loss per Common Share  (In thousands, except per share data)

|                                                 |                             | Years ended December 31, |        
|------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------- | ------------------------ | -------
|
|Net loss allocable to common stockholders        |                             | $                        | (25,714
|                                                 |                             |                          |        
|Weighted average common shares outstanding       |                             |                          | 17,999 
|Common stock equivalents                         |                             |                          |       
|                                                 |                             |                          |        
|Common shares and common stock equivalents       |                             |                          | 17,999 
|                                                 |                             |                          |        
|Net loss per common share:                       |                             |                          |        
|                                                 | Basic and diluted           |                          | $      
|                                                 |                             |                          |        
|Anti-dilutive common stock equivalents excluded: |                             |                          |        
|                                                 | Convertible preferred stock |                          |        
|                                                 | OP units                    |                          |        
|                                                 | Guaranteed stock            |                          |        
|                                                 | Contingent stock            |                          |        
|                                                 | Stock options               |                          |        

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58390-58391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24011]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
From the Vitro Manufacturing Facility in Canonsburg, PA, To Be Included 
in the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision 
to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Vitro 
Manufacturing facility in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, to be included in 
the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed 
definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as 
warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

[[Page 58391]]

    Facility: Vitro Manufacturing.
    Location: Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees who worked in any area.
    Period of Employment: January 1, 1958 through April 30, 1960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6a2a5a7b5a6a5a2a5c8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a7e797b697a797e79147d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-24011 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50759

Conference Calendar

__________________

FRANK SANCHEZ,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES;

BRUCE BENKE, District Officer;

FRANK DEMORE, Hearings Officer,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CV-741

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Sanchez appeals from the district court's dismissal of

his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and discern no reversible error. The appeal is frivolous

and therefore is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution

Sanchez that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Sanchez 
No. 95-50759

-2-

is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
News United States Air Force
 AF hosts, wins wounded warrior sitting volleyball tournamentPublished Nov. 20, 2015
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs Command Information
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force hosted a joint-service Warrior Care Month Sitting Volleyball Tournament Nov. 19 at the Pentagon Athletic Center, and the Air Force wounded warrior Airmen took home the trophy. 
The tournament was part of the weeklong Warrior CARE Event, held primarily at Joint Base Andrews, where more than 75 wounded, ill or injured service members from different branches of the military competed in adaptive sports and various activities aimed at healing of the body and mind.
The Warrior CARE Event offered participants caregiver support, and recovering Airmen mentorship, training and adaptive and rehabilitative sports training. CARE stands for:
C - Caregiver Support Program
A - Adaptive and Rehabilitative Sports Program
R - Recovering Airmen Mentorship Program
E - Employment and Career Readiness Program
For more information on Warrior CARE, click here.Joint Base Andrews 



Warrior Care Month 



care Related Links
        Air Force Hosts, Wins Sitting Volleyball Tournament
                                
                                The Air Force hosted a joint-service Wounded Warrior Sitting Volley Ball Tournament Nov. 19, 2015 at the Pentagon Athletic Center.  The Air Force Wounded Warrior Airmen took home the trophy.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24121]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Regular Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act

Time and Date: 2 p.m.. Wednesday, September 22, 2010.

Place: 1325 G Street NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

Status: Open.

Contact Person for More Information: Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 
Secretary, (202) 220-2376, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214449404d4d614f560f4e5346"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="16737e777a7a56786138796471">[email protected]</span></a>.

Agenda: 

I. Call to Order.
II. Approval of the Minutes.
III. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.
IV. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.
V. Approval of the Minutes.
VI. Summary Report of the Finance, Budget and Program Committee.
VII. Approval of the Minutes.
VIII. Approval of the Minutes.
IX. Summary of the Audit Committee.
X. Approval of the Minutes.
XI. Approval of the Revised Minutes.
XII. Board Policy Regarding Elected Officials.
XIII. NeighborWorks Transition Grant--CHC.
XIV. Financial Report.
XV. Corporate Scorecard.
XVI. Chief Executive Officer's Quarterly Management Report.
XVII. Strategic Planning Discussion.
XVIII. Adjournment.
No. 06-2.

Erica Hill,
Assistant Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24121 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In re Drew Arnold LOHOFF.

No. 2011-OB-0313.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 2011.

In re Lohoff, Drew Arnold; —Plaintiff; Applying For Permission to Take Bar Examination.

Denied. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, Section 4(C).
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1126 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation 

and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988. 

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HR 1126 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

3 9 of the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 

4 Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 

5 5108) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec8 retary to carry out this Act $12,000,000 for each of the 

9 fiscal years 2008 through 2012.’’. 

10 (b) STEEL PROJECT PRIORITIES.—Section 4(c)(1) of 

11 the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Tech12 nology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 

13 5103(c)(1)) is amended— 

14 (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘coatings 

15 for sheet steels’’ and inserting ‘‘sheet and bar 

16 steels’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub18 paragraph: 

19 ‘‘(K) The development of technologies 

20 which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’’. 

21 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Steel and 

22 Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competi23 tiveness Act of 1988 is further amended— 

24 (1) by striking section 7 (15 U.S.C. 5106); and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

HR 1126 RFS

1 (2) in section 8 (15 U.S.C. 5107), by inserting 

2 ‘‘, beginning with fiscal year 2008,’’ after ‘‘close of 

3 each fiscal year’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0 250 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. RONALD L. GOLAS ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including July 2 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 21 2024

05/21/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0250
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-57985) of DocuCorp International, Inc. of our
report dated September 9, 1999 relating to the consolidated financial
statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report dated September 9, 1999 relating to
the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, TX
October 29, 1999


                                       58
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      12,648,662
<SECURITIES>                                24,619,747
<RECEIVABLES>                              186,386,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           238,818,818
<PP&E>                                      39,123,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             613,241,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,933
<OTHER-SE>                                 121,157,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               613,241,998
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           224,557,230
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              174,725,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            55,746,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (867,901)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,217,362
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,758,245)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,459,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,459,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Fannie SAMI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17856.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 24, 1960.

*154Kurt Wellisch, Miami, Fla., for appellant.

Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Abbott Mannie Sellers, Karl Schmeidler, Robert N. Anderson, Meyer Rothwacks, Lee A. Jackson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty., Lavinia L. Redd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Although the taxpayer filed declarations of estimated tax in previous years and her income far exceeded the statutory amount requiring a declaration to be filed for 1950, she failed to file any declaration for that year. Section 294 (d) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.1952 ed. § 294 (d) (1) (A), 26 U.S.C.A. § 294(d) (1) (A), provides for an addition to the tax in such case “unless such failure is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to be due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect”. Whether the taxpayer’s claimed reliance upon her son for the filing of the declaration constituted such reasonable cause clearly presented a question of fact. See Coates v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 234 F.2d 459, 462-463. There is no evidence that her accountant advised that a declaration should not be filed for 1950. Clearly the district court was correct in upholding the addition to the tax under Section 294(d) (1) (A).

The appellee concedes that the recent decision in Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 80 S.Ct. 144, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, bars imposition of a further addition to the tax for the year 1950 for substantial underestimation of estimated taxes under Section 294(d) (2) of the 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C.1952 ed. § 294(d) (2), 26 U.S.C.A. § 294(d) (2). The judgment of the district court is accordingly

Corrected and affirmed.