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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Maui
Land & Pineapple Company, Inc. Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1999 and the
Statement of Operations for the year then ended, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                       783
<INVENTORY>                                     16,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,459
<PP&E>                                         224,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,535
<BONDS>                                         25,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,455
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,387
<SALES>                                        112,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,998
<CGS>                                           74,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,387
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,670
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,670
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Fund.


      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

      May 15, 2007


		E-3
10636.

#### JONES *v.*STAPLER.

The second grant of a new trial to the defendant in this- case was not an abuse of the discretion of the trial judge.

Decided January 7, 1920.

Rehearind denied January 28, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Macon—Judge Guerry. April 28, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*J. F. Urquhart, Hall & Grice,_G. J. Bloch,*for plaintiff.

*J. B. L. Smith, G. C. Harris, P. F. Brock, Reagan & Reagan,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

Twice has this case been tried by a jury. The verdict on the second trial was for just double the amount found by the jury on the first trial, and was for the full amount sued for. The order granting the new trial after the second verdict was in general terms. In *Richie*v. *Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.,*23 *Ga. App.*741 (99 S. E. 309), this court held: “It appears to be conclusively 'settled that, notwithstanding the return of a second verdict in favor of the same party, the trial judge may still exercise his discretion in granting or refusing a new trial, though that discretion may not then be as ample as on the hearing of the motion for a first new trial *(Morgan*v. *Lamb,*16 *Ga. App.*484, 85 S. E. 792, and cases there cited), and under the particular facts of the instant ease the second grant of a new trial was not an abuse of the discretion vested in the trial judge.” As in that case we held that “under the particular facts of the instant case the second grant of a new trial was not an abuse of the discretion vested in the trial judge,” so we hold-in this case.

As a new trial is to be had, the errors (if errors they are) complained of in the special grounds of the motion for new trial are such as will not likely recur on another trial, and it is not necessary to pass upon them.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J. concur.*
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: J ames Jackson III v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 330

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 359103

Trial court: 248th District Court of Harris County

A jury found a ppell ant

, J ames Jackson III, guilty of the felony offense of aggravated sexual assault and assessed punishment at confinement for sixty years. Appellant’s appointed trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on appellant’s behalf and a motion to withdraw, which the

trial court granted. The trial court then found that appellant was indigent for the purpose of “employing appellate counsel and/or paying for a clerk’s and reporter’s record” and appointed Emily Detoto to represent appellant on appeal. On July 15, 2015, Emily D etoto filed in this

Court a Docketing Statement on appellant’s behalf. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.2.

On September 16 , 2015, Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., filed a “Notice of Appearance,” stating

that “[n]otice is hereby provided that Robert L. Sirianni, Jr ., Esq. wi th The Law Office of Robert

L. Sirianni , Jr. is designated as lead counsel for Appellant . . . . ” T he no t ice , however, is not signed by appellant or Emily Detoto

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.1(c) (providing “new attorney and either the party or the former lead counsel must sign the notice ” of new lead counsel). Accordingly, Emily Detoto remains as appellant’s lead counsel , and we direct the Clerk of this

Court to note Robert L. Sirianni, Jr .’s appearance as counsel for appellant on the docket of this

Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.2.

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr . has filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief on appellant’s behalf. The motion is granted . Appellant’s brief is due to be f iled no later than 30 days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a), (d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 29, 2015
#### Dennis E. Locke et al. v. John G. Gross et al.

*Exclusion of testimony*— Discount.

Judgment will not be reversed for the exclusion of certain testimony wliere the only fact it could have aided in proving was actually shown by other evidence.

The contract under which an agent was employed to make sales on commission provided that the goods were to be sold for cash or for notes payable in one year with interest at seven per cent. In an action by the agent for his commissions the question arose how notes which he had taken without interest were to be put on the cash basis. *Held*proper to discount from their face so much as would make them equivalent to a seven per cent, security at one year.

*267Error to Washtenaw.

Submitted April 18.

Decided April 25.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*•Scrnyer ds Knowlton*for appellants.

*Charles It. Whitman,*for appellees.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendants for commissions on sales of certain mills and machinery and recovered judgment. Errors are assigned on the rulings of the judge in his charge and the exclusion of a certain book entry as evidence. In regard to this last item it is enough to say that all that it could have aided in proving was actually proved by the witness on whose testimony it was to be established.'

The only matters beyond this referred to in the argument of counsel relate to certain matters of computation. It was a part of the contract that mills were to be sold at an average of $110 in cash or good notes payable in one year with 7 per cent, interest, and plaintiffs were to receive twenty-five per cent. Some notes were taken without interest, and a question arose how they were to be put on the cash basis referred to. The court held it proper to discount from their face such an amount as would make them equivalent to a seven per cent, security at one year. This was not only correct, but was favorable to defendants, because after maturity they would bear interest on the principal at which they were taken and on one year’s interest, which certainly could be no cause of complaint.

We do not find any other errors assigned in any tangible form that seem to have any foundation in the charge.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Cooley and Makston, JJ. concurred.
10690.

#### Burns *et al. v.*Royster Guano Company.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Affidavit of illegality; from city court of Milieu—Judge Delde. April 22, 1919.

*A. S. Anderson, Thomas L. Hill,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Brinson & Hatcher,*contra.

Luke, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court *(Proctor*v. *Royster Guano Co., 21 Ga. App.*617, 94 S. E. 821); and it is here now on exception to the dismissal of an affidavit of illegality, in which the execution issued upon the judgment in question was attacked on the ground that “it does not appear that the said E. S. Royster Guano Company is either an individual trading under said name, or is a copartnership composed of named individuals, nor is a corporation under the laws of any State of America,” etc. The petition shows that the suit proceeded in the name of “E. S. Royster Company, a corporation.” The judgment is regular, and the execution issued and proceeded in accordance with the judgment. There is no merit in the affidavit or illegality, and the court'properly dismissed it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, 0, J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

April 20, 2001

To the Mesabi Trust Unitholders,

         We have enclosed with this letter Mesabi Trust's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2001.

         As you will see by reviewing the Section in the Form 10-K entitled
"Important Factors Affecting Mesabi Trust - Uncertainty of Market Conditions in
the Steel and Iron Ore Industry" on page 6, there currently is a great deal of
uncertainty regarding market conditions in the steel and iron ore industry.
After modestly improving in the first half of 2000, North America steel industry
fundamentals deteriorated significantly in the second half of the year. This is
reflected by comparing the net income earned by the Trust in the fourth quarter
ended January 31, 2001, which was $1,031,551 (or net income per Unit of $0.08)
with the net income earned in the fourth quarter ended January 31, 2000, which
was $1,954,886 (or net income per Unit of $0.15).

         As reported in the Trust's press release dated January 18, 2001,
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc., the corporate parent of Northshore Mining Company,
announced earlier this year a reduction in its quarterly dividend from $0.375
per common share to $0.10 per share, and its intention to reduce iron ore pellet
production at Northshore by approximately 700,000 tons in 2001. As reasons for
the production cutback, Cleveland-Cliffs cited the impact on its customers of
perceived unfairly traded imports, the general deterioration in overall steel
demand in North America, steel industry consolidation and slowing economies in
the United States and Canada. No forecast of the volume of shipments of iron ore
pellets for the coming year was provided. These current conditions in the steel
and iron ore industry could have an adverse impact on the royalties that will be
paid to the Trust during 2001.

         Mesabi Trust's press release dated April 20, 2001, advises that, as in
past years, no quarterly distribution is being made with respect to this past
quarter. Closure of the Great Lakes due to ice again resulted in minimal
shipments of iron ore pellets during the quarter. In addition, the Trustees
decided to modestly increase the unallocated reserve to address the uncertainty
in the steel and iron ore industry as discussed above.

         This news release contains certain forward-looking statements with
respect to iron ore production at Northshore in 2001, which statements are
intended to be made under the safe harbor protections of the private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual production and shipments of iron ore
pellets could differ materially from current expectations due to inherent risks
such as lower demand for steel, iron ore, higher steel imports, processing
difficulties or other factors. Although the Mesabi Trustees believe that its
forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements
are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to
differ materially.


                                        Respectfully,


                                        Trustees of Mesabi Trust
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Elder an d Senior Judge Willis

BARBER & ROSS COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0004-06-4 PER CURIAM MAY 2, 2006 MIRSAD KAJGANIC

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Roger L. Williams; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellants. (Metin A. Cay; Swiger & Cay, on brief), for appellee.
Barber & Ross Company and its insurer app eal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that (1) Mirsad Kajganic su stained a compensable injury by accident on July 8, 2003; and (2) his claim was not barred by hi s failure to follow medi cal restrictions. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the commission in its final opinion. See Kajganic v. Barber & Ross Co., et al. , VWC File No. 215-03-29 (Dec. 7, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.
See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4618 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4618

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the ``Anthony I. 
               Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2004

   Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Israel, Mr. Nadler, Mr. McNulty, Mr. 
  Ackerman, Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
 Meeks of New York, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Bishop of New York, 
Mr. Fossella, Mr. Crowley, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Owens, Mr. Walsh, 
 Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Velazquez, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
   Weiner, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Houghton, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. 
    McHugh, and Mr. Quinn) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the ``Anthony I. 
               Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ANTHONY I. LOMBARDI MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Anthony I. 
Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.(b)






AMENDMENT NO. 1




TO




CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC 

RESTRICTED SHARES AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is made this      day of      , 2005, by Cleveland-Cliffs Inc (the
“Company”) and      (the “Grantee”).



WITNESSETH:




WHEREAS, effective March 8, 2005 the Company granted to the Grantee certain shares of the
Company’s common stock, par value $.50 per share (the “Common Shares”) subject to certain
restrictions on transfer which are described in a Restricted Shares Agreement executed by the
Company and accepted by the Grantee; and



WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Company and the Grantee to amend such Restricted Shares
Agreement in order to allow the restrictions on half the shares subject to the Agreement to lapse
on the date that the restricted shares are no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture;
and



NOW, THEREFORE, effective March 8, 2005, the Company and the Grantee hereby amend the
Restricted Shares Agreement as follows:



(1) Section 3 of the Restricted Shares Agreement is hereby amended by the addition at the end
of said Section of a new Section 3(e) to read as follows:




	 	 	 	“(e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Section 3, fifty
percent (50%) of the Common Shares covered by this Agreement will cease to be
covered by the restrictions of this Agreement in the event that, prior to
December 31, 2007, the Common Shares covered by this Agreement are not subject
to, or are no longer subject to, a “substantial risk of forfeiture” as
determined pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 of the Internal Revenue
Code. To the extent that any Common Shares covered by this Agreement are used
to satisfy withholding taxes in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement,
such Common Shares shall be deemed to have come from the portion of the Common
Shares no longer subject to the restrictions of this Agreement.”





(2) Section 9 of the Restricted Shares Agreement is hereby amended by the deletion of said
Section 9 and the substitution in lieu thereof of a new Section 9 to read as follows:




	 	 	 	“9. Withholding Taxes. If the Company shall be required to withhold any
federal, state, local or foreign tax in connection with any issuance of restricted or
unrestricted Common Shares or other securities pursuant to this Agreement, the Grantee
shall pay the tax or make provisions that are satisfactory to the Company for the
payment thereof including transferring to the Company sufficient Common Shares
necessary to satisfy the withholding requirements.”





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Grantee have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be
executed this      day of      , 2005.



CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC



By:     



Grantee:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1998
<CASH>                                           3,863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,369
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,479
<PP&E>                                           4,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,269
<SALES>                                          5,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,606
<CGS>                                            2,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    620
<INCOME-TAX>                                       238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>