alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Baker *v.*State.

Opinion delivered December 9, 1929.

*W. U. McCabe,*for appellant.

*Blal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Pat Mehaffy,*Assistant, for appellee.

*637Butler, J.

The appellant, Don Baker, was tried and convicted of the offense of transporting liquor, and on appeal contends, first, that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the conviction, and second, that the court erred in permitting incompetent and prejudicial testimony to be introduced on the trial.

On the date of the alleged offense the appellant appeared at the jail door in Baxter County, in company with one Leonard Wilks. On the outside, near the door, was the jailer’s son. The jailer, who was just inside the jail door, with his back to the outside, upon hearing a commotion, turned, and saw the appellant in the act of throwing a fruit jar against the jail wall. The jailer testified that the jar had contained whiskey, which he identified by reason of the odor from the liquid spilled upon the wall and ground. The appellant was drunk at the time. He was immediately arrested and placed in jail.

At the trial the appellant testified that he had not carried any whiskey to the jail, and in this he was corroborated by his companion. He accounted for having the fruit jar in his possession in the following manner “I saw a pint jar sitting there by the side of the jail, and reached down to pick it up, and Lloyd (the jailer’s son) grabbed me and knocked it out of my hand just as I picked it up. There was a flat rock there, and it fell on the rook and broke. I didn’t know what was in the jar.” The appellant admitted that he was drunk, but claimed to remember everything that had happened.

The jailer testified, in rebuttal, that he had been going in and out of the jail just before the occurrence, bringing' in wood, and that there was no fruit jar in the locality as testified to by the appellant; that if there had been he could and would have seen it.

This is practically all the material testimony in the case. The explanation of the appellant as to how he got possession of the whiskey, under all the circumstances in the case, was unsatisfactory, and a majority of the court *638are of the opinion that the jury might have reasonably inferred that he not only had the liquor in his hands, but that he brought it to the jail, and that the evidence, while slight, is sufficient to support the verdict. The testimony, which the appellant contends was incompetent and should have been excluded from the consideration of the jury, was that of the jailer, who testified that at the time of the incident the appellant was drunk. We think this was a circumstance which tended to substantiate the theory of the State. The appellant’s condition of itself showed that he had had contact with liquor, in addition to his handling- the fruit jar by the jail wall. The jury had a right, not only to consider his actions at the time of his arrest, but his condition at the time, in determining whether or not he was guilty of the crime charged.

In view of what we have said, it follows that the judg7 ment must be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837893
<NAME> 88AP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         310,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               370,194
<PP&E>                                       4,841,519
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,111,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,099,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,099,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,099,739
<SALES>                                        128,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,417
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,624
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,624
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,624
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. at March 31, 1997, and its statement of income
for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. for the three months ended March 31,
1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,013,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                   146,249
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      25,383,152
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,284,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,081,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,056,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,081,421
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               818,694
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  171,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                800,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            800,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   800,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4253

To amend title 4, United States Code, to require the display at half-staff 

of the flag of the United States on National Workers Memorial Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2004

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 4, United States Code, to require the display 

at half-staff of the flag of the United States on National 

Workers Memorial Day.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPLAY OF FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AT 

4 HALF-STAFF ON NATIONAL WORKERS MEMO5 RIAL DAY. 

6 Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amend7 ed by inserting before ‘‘Mother’s Day’’ the following: ‘‘Na8 tional Workers Memorial Day (half-staff), April 28;’’.

Æ
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 39 Mobile Home Crawl Space Vents

Item 39 Crawl Space Vents – Keep vents clean and covered with a 1/8th inch fine metal mesh screen to prevent ember intrusion. 

Enlarged image from above showing vent covered

with a 1/8th inch fine metal mesh screen

Vent openings are covered

with a 1/8th inch fine metal 

mesh screen

Vent openings are large, without fine metal mesh screen

Vinyl 

vent in 

skirting

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 39: Crawl Space Vents, Mobile Home 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4326

To authorize an outpatient clinic to be established in Denton, Texas, for 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2004

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To authorize an outpatient clinic to be established in Denton, 

Texas, for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VET4 ERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC IN DEN5 TON, TEXAS. 

6 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may take such 

7 steps as necessary to establish an outpatient clinic in Den8 ton, Texas.

Æ
Exhibit 21

THE MIDLAND COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

December 31, 2007

The
subsidiaries of the registrant as of December 31, 2007, all of which are included in the consolidated financial statements, are as follows:



|                                                        |  |                       |  |                         
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                                                        |  | State ofIncorporation |  | Percentageof VotingStock
|M/G Transport Services, Inc.                            |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|Midland-Guardian Co.                                    |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|MGT Services, Inc.                                      |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|SUBSIDIARIES OF MIDLAND-GUARDIAN CO.:                   |  |                       |  |                         
|American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.                   |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE GROUP, INC.:  |  |                       |  |                         
|American Modern Home Insurance Company                  |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|American Family Home Insurance Company                  |  | Florida               |  | 100                     
|American Modern Life Insurance Company                  |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|Lloyds Modern Corporation                               |  | Texas                 |  | 100                     
|American Modern Home Service Company                    |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|Modern Services Group, Inc.                             |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|American Modern Financial Services, Inc.                |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY: |  |                       |  |                         
|American Modern Lloyds Insurance Company                |  | Texas                 |  | 100                     
|American Southern Home Insurance Company                |  | Florida               |  | 100                     
|American Western Home Insurance Company                 |  | Oklahoma              |  | 100                     
|American Modern Select Insurance Company                |  | Ohio                  |  | 100                     
|SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY: |  |                       |  |                         
|SPL Holding Company, Inc.                               |  | Arkansas              |  | 100
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 21.1




                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                           Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                           -----------------------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Dallas Woodcraft, Inc.                                    Texas
                                                          
GIA, Inc.                                                 Nebraska
                                                          
Homco, Inc.                                               Texas
                                                          
Homco de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                             Mexico
                                                          
Homco Puerto Rico, Inc.                                   Delaware
                                                          
Spring Valley Scents, Inc.                                Texas
</TABLE>
#### Catharine Hoey v. Timothy Harty.

*Matters in aggravation do not convert assumpsit to tort.*

Matters of aggravation set forth, in a count in *assumpsit*do not change it to a count in *tort.*

Error to Kent.

Submitted April 13.

Decided April 19.

*192Case. Defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

*ED. E. Corbitt*for appellant.

*McBride & Oairoll*and *BE. E. Thompson*for appellee,.

Marston, J.

This case comes here on error assigned on the record, no bill of exceptions having been settled. It isnrged here that the declaration would not sustain the judgment, as counts in *assumpsit*and counts in tort were joined in the same declaration and that such a joinder was fatal, and that upon this declaration a general verdict \was rendered.

There was no such joinder; each and every count was in *assumpsit,*in some of which matters by way of aggravation were set forth. This does not change the form of the count from *assumpsit*to tort. The other objections we cannot consider on this record.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
§ Survey 7 buildings in 

Memphis (1.86m sqft) using 

GVI LiDAR backpack, 360°

camera, GPS, temperature, 

humidity, and sound sensors 

§ Leverage Deep Neural 

Networks to extract objects 

from data

Map901: Building Rich Interior Hazard Maps for First Responders

Problem Statement

Impact

Technical Concept

Milestones and Deliverables

§ First responders need detailed interior building maps to 

navigate safely and quickly during emergencies/crisis.

§ Project objective: build a catalog of 3D maps with clear 

identification of safety-related objects

§ capture point cloud, camera images and other sensor data

§ annotate maps with automatically extracted objects of 

interest, e.g., exits and fire extinguishers

Velodyne Puck 

3D LiDAR

Z Cam S1 

Camera

GVI LiBackpack

§ Enable efficient annotation of 3D point 

cloud indoor maps for smart buildings

§ Support public safety agencies during 

crisis events 

§ Integrated with AR and VR

§ Facilitate other research efforts

§ indoor localization/navigation

§ indoor location-based services

§ Data catalog for public safety users and researchers at 

data.memphistn.gov

§ Point cloud (ASPR LAS 1.4-R13 with point data format 7) 

§ 360° image data (MOV format, 4K images)

§ GPS, IMU, temp/humidity/sound

§ Automated object identification method

§ ArcGIS based app for first responders

§ Two buildings for future research access 

§ Memphis Central Library

§ FedEx Institute of Technology at U. Memphis Image sources: https://tinyurl.com/y8hg8ke8, https://tinyurl.com/y8olb6ab, https://tinyurl.com/y8oostrf

City of Memphis: Michael Rodriguez, Wendy Harris, Binny Mittal, Joseph Roberts 

University of Memphis: Lan Wang, Eddie Jacobs. Junaid Khan, Mazharul Hossain, Tianxing Ma, Meg Homeyer, Jonathan Wade
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Georgia

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

(Rev.: September 2021)

Mass Echelon II

20 kg to 1 mg

Mass Echelon III

500 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

4 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

5000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Transfer, II

500 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

500 gal to 20 gal 

2023

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2023-02-01 to 2024-02-01
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0908V

UNPUBLISHED

CARLA PAVAO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: January 13, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Howard Scott Gold, Gold Law Firm, LLC, Wellesley Hills, MA, for petitioner.

Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 25, 2018, Carla Pavao filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered 

on November 17, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 13, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner has satisfied the 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to 

Interpretation, which afford petitioners a presumption of causation if onset of SIRVA 

occurs within forty-eight hours after receipt of a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no 

apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “the medical 

records demonstrate that petitioner has experienced the residual effects of her SIRVA 

for more than six months . . . . [and] has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Prepared and filed by St Ives Financial



Exhibit 10.14

January 12, 2005

Aearo Executive

RE: FY 2005 Aearo Company Management Incentive Program

Dear Aearo Executive:

As a key member of the Aearo management team, you have been selected to participate in the Company’s Management Incentive Program.  This letter provides specific information about your participation in the plan.  It details the potential payout you can earn based upon Aearo’s financial performance and the successful achievement of your individual goals.

Your payout opportunity is expressed as a percentage of your base annual salary as stated below.  The payout is comprised of two components. Seventy-five percent of the payout is based upon Aearo’s global operating cash flow as measured by Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA).  The remaining twenty-five percent is based upon the achievement of your individual goals.

The EBITDA threshold, target, and maximum values are set at the beginning of the fiscal year.  If Aearo achieves the FY 2005 EBITDA maximum value of $70.2 MM, you will earn 200% of your base plan EBITDA component payout.   If EBITDA for the year is at the threshold value, you will only earn 50% of your base plan EBITDA component payout.  The EBITDA component payout will be prorated to reflect actual Aearo EBITDA performance between the threshold and maximum values.  If EBITDA falls below the threshold value, no EBITDA component payout will be made.

How much of the goals-based component is paid will be determined by your performance against your goals as assessed by your manager and affirmed through the process of two-level review.  Further, if EBITDA performance is below threshold, any funding for the goals-based component of the plan would be at the discretion of the Board of Directors.  

A summary of your FY 2005 payout potential follows:

Factors:

	  Current Base Annual Salary:	$ 
	  Participation Level:	% 
	  Base Plan payout:	$ 







Page Two
  	 	FY 2005 Threshold

  $62.2 MM EBITDA	FY 2005

   Base Plan
$66.2 MM EBITDA	FY 2005 Financial Plan

  $70.2 MM EBITDA
	  EBITDA Component (75%)	$  	$  	$  
	  Goals Component (25%)	$  	$  	$  
	  Total Potential Payout	$  	$  	$  


Base annual salary at the close of the fiscal year (9/30/05) will be used in calculating payouts.  Participants who voluntarily terminate their employment or who are involuntarily terminated for performance-related reasons prior to the close of the fiscal year forfeit any payout under the program.  Employees who are involuntarily terminated prior to the close of the fiscal year as the result of reductions-in-force, redundancy, or job elimination would receive a prorata portion of any payout made based on months worked during fiscal 2005.

Fiscal Year 2004 was an outstanding year for our company!  Let’s all stay focused on achieving our financial plan objectives to make Fiscal Year 2005 an even better one!

Sincerely,



Michael A. McLain