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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,057
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,003
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         84,569
<ALLOWANCE>                                        687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,470
<DEPOSITS>                                      52,655
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,867
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,852
<LONG-TERM>                                     19,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  99,470
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,700
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  184
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    20
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,904
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 614
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 936
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              968
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     83
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        52
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.83
<LOANS-NON>                                        415
<LOANS-PAST>                                       483
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   671
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       16
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  687
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               687
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CATRIONA GRACE WHALEN,

Appellant,

v.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1945

[November 10, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18-

029774.

Philip D. Parrish of Philip D. Parrish, P.A., Miami, and David J. Gillis 

of Law Offices of David J. Gillis, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Charles M-P "Chip" George of Law Offices of Charles M-P George, 

Coral Gables, and Derek H. Lloyd and Anthony J. Renaldo of Chartwell 

Law, Deerfield Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, ARTAU, JJ., and HARPER, BRADLEY, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
585 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT L. POLK.

July 10, 1990.

Cross-petition for Certification denied.
TRICO MARINE SERVICES, INC.

                                              EXHIBIT 11.1

                                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                            (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended March 31, 1999     Three Months Ended March 31, 1998
                                           -----------------------------------   -----------------------------------
                                                                         Per-                                  Per-
                                                 Loss        Shares      share       Income       Shares       share
                                             (Numerator) (Denominator)  Amount     (Numerator) (Denominator)  Amount
                                           ------------- ------------- --------  ------------- ------------- --------
          <S>                              <C>           <C>           <C>       <C>           <C>           <C>
          Net income (loss)                 $   (7,343)                           $    9,844
                                           -------------                         -------------

          Basic earnings per share

          Income (loss) available to common
               shareholders                     (7,343)   20,378,416     ($0.36)       9,844    20,298,403     $0.48
                                                                         =======                               ======

          Effect of Dilutive Securities

          Stock option grants                        -             -                       -       793,519
                                           ------------- ------------            ------------  ------------

          Diluted earnings per share

          Income (loss) available to common
               shareholders plus assumed    
               conversions                  $   (7,343)   20,378,416     ($0.36)  $    9,844    21,091,922     $0.47
                                           ============= ============= ========  ============= ============= ========
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Alan G. Shuler, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of MakeMusic! Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 10, 2005 By: /s/ Alan G. Shuler  Alan G. Shuler  Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 10, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Project Committee will be held Wednesday, November 10, 2010, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. For more information, please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

      ( print page 62630)    
Dated: October 4, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2010-25451 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1007
THEODORE B. GOULD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; JOSEPH DELEON; RICHARD L. GRUBAUGH; BARBARA PETROHOVICH; WILLIAM MARTIN; CHARLES PINE; ANN M. WELHAF; AND OTHERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00008-nkm) Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore B. Gould, Appellant Pro Se. Ivan C. Dale, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Theodore B. Gould appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his complaint in which he alleged conspiracy and fraud and sought a refund of taxes and compensatory damages, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of the order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeGould v. United States , No. 3:06-00008-nkm (W.D. Va. Aug. 9 & Oct. 16, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Review of P01 Application: Molecular Basis of Pediatric Formulation Design.                    

*Date:*                         November 3, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 5, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-25632 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 906 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require the public disclosure 

by trusts established under section 524(g) of such title, of quarterly 

reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, and Mr. MARINO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require 

the public disclosure by trusts established under section 

524(g) of such title, of quarterly reports that contain 

detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition 

of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos, 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Furthering Asbestos 

5 Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 906 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 524(g) of title 11, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall, subject 

5 to section 107— 

6 ‘‘(A) file with the bankruptcy court, not later 

7 than 60 days after the end of every quarter, a report 

8 that shall be made available on the court’s public 

9 docket and with respect to such quarter— 

10 ‘‘(i) describes each demand the trust re11 ceived from, including the name and exposure 

12 history of, a claimant and the basis for any 

13 payment from the trust made to such claimant; 

14 and 

15 ‘‘(ii) does not include any confidential med16 ical record or the claimant’s full social security 

17 number; and 

18 ‘‘(B) upon written request, and subject to pay19 ment (demanded at the option of the trust) for any 

20 reasonable cost incurred by the trust to comply with 

21 such request, provide in a timely manner any infor22 mation related to payment from, and demands for 

23 payment from, such trust, subject to appropriate 

24 protective orders, to any party to any action in law 

25 or equity if the subject of such action concerns li26 ability for asbestos exposure.’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 906 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub3 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

4 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

5 Act. 

6 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend7 ments made by this Act shall apply with respect to cases 

8 commenced under title 11 of the United States Code be9 fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Anthony et al., Appellants, *v.*Abrams, Appellee.

*17(No. 6152 —

Decided October 19, 1942.)

*Mr. H. G. Bolsinger,*for appellants.

*Mr. J. G. DeFosset,*for appellee.

Ross, J.

The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county; such appeal being designated an appeal upon questions of law and fact. Upon oral argument of the case, it was conceded by plaintiffs that the appeal must be confined to one upon questions of law only.

A verdict for the defendant was instructed by the court at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ evidence.

After an examination of the bill of exceptions, it is apparent that the trial court was fully justified in its conclusions that there was no evidence either that the testator at the time he executed his will lacked mental capacity to make a will, or that at the time he executed the will he was under such undue influence that the testament did hot represent his voluntary act in the disposition of his property.

It is not sufficient that he was influenced either by affection or dislike. The adverse influence alleged to exist must have been such that at the time he executed the instrument he was under such restraint that his testamentary disposition was not in accordance with his own independent wishes and judgment. *Monroe v.*
      *18
      *Barclay,*17 Ohio St., 302, 93 Am. Dec., 620; *Lovelady*v. *Rhinelander, Exrx.,*60 Ohio App., 493, 21 N. E. (2d), 1001; *Lovelady*v. *Rheinlander,*66 Ohio App., 409, 34 N. E. (2d), 788.

The evidence does disclose that the testator at times showed an intense dislike toward the mother of the plaintiffs, and that there was ill feeling between the daughter of testator and the mother of plaintiffs. The evidence as to mental incapacity is limited to developing that the testator at the time of the death of his son and wife was sorely distraught. . Such evidence would not justify the trial court in submitting the case to the jury in the presence of the presumptions .surrounding the will'after its probate.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthews, P. J., and Hamilton, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1998
<CASH>                                             381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,606
<PP&E>                                          20,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,899
<SALES>                                        432,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,864
<CGS>                                          385,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lee Michael BROWN.

No. 2010-KO-2577.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Brown, Lee Michael; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 701,318; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0635.

Denied.