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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE
YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      116,901
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,579
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          24,138
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,463
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   7,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,118
<COMMON>                                         8,055
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        9,341
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             33,004
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  50,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            54,509
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              15,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    2,818
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  29,391
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  152,118
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       71,378
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,013
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      52,913
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      52,913
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         18,465
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (4,821)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  18,918
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,274
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,631
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,631
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,539
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,549<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          12,960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.67
<FN>
<F1>TOTAL INTEREST ON BONDS REPRESENTS INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO LONG-TERM
DEBT OUTSTANDING UNDER FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AND LONG-TERM SECURED NOTES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-503, CA-98-1817-AM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on December 23, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on December 24, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Edghill Leo Francis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Francis , Nos. CR-95- 503; CA-98-1817-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 24, 1998). * We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### John L. Hargnell, relator v. The Lafayette Benevolent Society of Bay City.

*Private corporations*— Enforcement *of rules.*

Tlie Supreme Court will not interfere with the internal regulation of private corporations in the enforcement of their rules unless under very peculiar circumstances of substantial wrong; if members have any grievance arising therefrom, for which they are entitled to redress, they can proceed by action.

Mandamus to compel the society to reinstate relator to Ms rights as a member, the society having suspended Mm for the contumacious and willful violation of a rule in leaving a special meeting without necessity and without permission of the presiding officer. '

Submitted and denied with costs January 24.

*Simonson c& Qillett*and *T. A. E. Weadook*for relator.

*A. MeDonell*for respondent.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4327 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4327

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
7450 Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Vitilas `Veto' 
                      Reid Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7450 
Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post 
Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Department of the Treasury (TRES) Fiscal Year 2020 Agency Report

1. Please provide a summary of your agency’s activities undertaken to carry out the provisions of 

OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” and the National Technology Transfer and 

Advance Act (NTTAA). The summary should contain a link to the agency’s standards-specific 

website(s) where information about your agency’s standards and conformity assessment related 

activities are available.

Treasury is not reporting any Government-unique standards and does not have activity in this area.

2. Please list the government-unique standards (GUS) your agency began using in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards during FY 2020. Please note that GUS which are still in effect from previous years 

should continue to be listed, thus the total number in your agency's report will include all GUS 

currently in use (previous years and new as of this FY): 0
___________

United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

North Carolina 

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, anddemonstrated 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 

Mass Echelon I 30 kg to 1 mg 50 lb to 0.001 lb Mass Echelon II 

Katrice Lipp

250 kg to 1 mg NIST Office 2500 lb to 0.001 lb 8 oz to 0.03125 oz Effective DateMass Echelon III 1000 kg to 1 mg NOTE: Th

Weight Carts 6000 lb to 3000 lb Lottery Balls 2.65 gVolume Gravimetric, I 50 mL 100 gal to 1 gill Volume Gravimetric, I SVP 30 gal to 5 gal calibration

2500 lb to 0.001 lb 

Volume Transfer, II 2000 gal to 1 gal Volume Transfer, II LPG 110 gal to 24 gal 

Length, Lottery Balls 39 

mm to 37 mm 

Temperature III, IV660 °C to ‐30 °C1220 °F to ‐22 °F

locations. 8 oz to 0.03125 oz 

(Rev.: September 2021)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1996
<CASH>                                         621,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,000
<INVENTORY>                                     33,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,636,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      2,167,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       484,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (82,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,636,000
<SALES>                                      2,506,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,506,000
<CGS>                                        1,954,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,954,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               707,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             553,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,553,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,553,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,553,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.27
<FN>
<F1>DELTA IS A PROPERTY-OWNING COMPANY AND PROPERTY MANAGING COMPANY.  THEREFORE IT
DOES NOT HAVE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET AS TO LONG TERM/CURRENT ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES, THEREFORE CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES ARE 0.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMES P. MEJIA
, Appellant,

v.

ROSA B. MEJIA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3106

[ March 30, 2022 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Linda A. Alley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18005173 FMCE (40)

.

James P. Mejia, Santiago, Dominican Republic, pro se.

Hugo A. Rodriguez of The Law Offices of H.A. Rodriguez, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. Our affi rmance is without prejudice to the parties’ revisiting issues surrounding the Qualified Domestic Relations Order during the final hearing.

G ROSS

, M AY and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 128421 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128421 

 COA: 251351 

Calhoun CC: 2003-000571-FC 

CHARLES PHILLIP CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0919 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 28, 2005 

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon Edward HALL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4932.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 15, 2001.

Decided May 23, 2001.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, for appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gordon Edward Hall, Jr., appeals his conviction for possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West 2000). We affirm.

Hall contends the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the possession of the firearms was in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction bears “a heavy burden.” *United States v. Hoyte,*51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir.1995). On direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a “verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); *see also United States v. Hastings,*134 F.3d 235, 238 (4th Cir.1998).

We have reviewed the record and briefs and find sufficient evidence to support Hall’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Hall’s conviction. 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.*
#### Thomas Dooley v. William Eilbert.

*Verbal sales*— Judgment *on certiorari*— Becord, *on error.*

There can be no recovery on a vernal sale of goods exceeding $50 in value unless something has been paid or some part of the goods delivered. _ Comp. L. §4699.

Where the result in the circuit court on *cei'tiorm'i*is the same as below, the judgment should be a simple affirmance, with or without costs; it is formal error to render a new judgment for damages and. costs, enforcible by execution from the circuit court.

On error bringing up a case affirmed on *certiorari*to a justice, the case is to be heard on the justice’s return alone; the Supreme Court cannot regard a certificate by the county clerk that part of the judgment *616was collected by justice’s execution before the decision in the circuit. Questions of payment can arise only when it is sought to enforce the judgment.

Error to "Wayne.

Submitted Jan. 19.

Decided Jan. 25.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Judgment modified.

*Ford da Morris*for plaintiff in error.

*Atkmson da Atkinson*for defendant in error.

Per Curiam.

Eilbert sued Dooley in justice’s court for goods sold and delivered and recovered judgment for ninety dollars and costs. On *certiorari*from the circuit court the only question worthy of notice was whether the justice had any evidence of a valid sale of the goods. The sale was verbal, and nothing had been paid upon it. As the price exceeded fifty. dollars, it was therefore necessary to show that the goods or some portion of them had been delivered. The circuit judge was of opinion there was some evidence tending to show delivery; and we are inclined to agree in this view.

The circuit court erred, however, in the manner of entering up judgment. Instead of a simple affirmance, which should have been entered, the court ordered new judgment for damages and.costs to be entered, to be enforced by execution from that court. But this was a mere formal error, and could have wronged no one.

Plaintiff in error produces here the certificate of the county clerk that it was shown in the circuit court that the judgment had been in part collected by execution from the justice’s court before the case was decided in the circuit; but the paper has no business here. The case on *cerUorari*is to be heard and decided exclusively on the justice’s return; and questions of payment can only arise when the judgment is sought to be enforced.

The judgment of the circuit court will be so far modified as to make it a simple affirmance of the judgment of the justice with costs. Under the circumstances no costs will be awarded in this court.
EXHIBIT 24
                              
                      Power of Attorney
                              


      KNOW  ALL  MEN  BY  THESE PRESENTS,  that  the  undersigned
Directors   and   Officers   of   Millipore   Corporation    (the
"Corporation"), do hereby constitute and appoint C. William Zadel
and  Jeffrey Rudin and each of them individually, their true  and
lawful  attorneys  and  agents  to  execute  on  behalf  of   the
Corporation  the  Form 10-K Annual Report of the Corporation  for
the  fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, and all such additional
instruments related thereto which such attorneys and  agents  may
deem  to be necessary and desirable to enable the Corporation  to
comply  with the requirements of the Securities Exchange  Act  of
1934,   as  amended,  and  any  regulations,  orders,  or   other
requirements  of  the  United  States  Securities  and   Exchange
Commission  thereunder  in connection with  the  preparation  and
filing  of  said Form 10-K Annual Report, including specifically,
but  without limitation of the foregoing, power and authority  to
sign  the  names  of each of such Directors and Officers  on  his
behalf,  as such Director or Officer, as indicated below  to  the
said Form 10-K Annual Report or documents filed or to be filed as
a part of or in connection with such Form 10-K Annual Report; and
each  of  the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms  all  that
said  attorneys and agents shall do or cause to be done by virtue
thereof.


SIGNATURE                TITLE                    DATE



/s/C. William Zadel      Chairman, President           February 12,
1998
C. William Zadel              Chief Executive Officer
                         and Director



/s/Charles D. Baker      Director                 February 12, 1998
Charles D. Baker



/s/Robert C. Bishop      Director                 February 12, 1998
Robert C. Bishop



/s/Samuel C. Butler      Director                 February 12, 1998
Samuel C. Butler

SIGNATURE                TITLE                    DATE



/s/Robert E. Caldwell         Director            February 12, 1998
Robert E. Caldwell



/s/Maureen A. Hendricks       Director            February 12, 1998
Maureen A. Hendricks



/s/Mark Hoffman          Director            February 12, 1998
Mark Hoffman



/s/Steven Muller         Director            February 12, 1998
Steven Muller



/s/Thomas O. Pyle        Director            February 12, 1998
Thomas O. Pyle



/s/John F. Reno          Director            February 12, 1998
John F. Reno
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

BENNETT C. WILLIAMS, ) a/k/a BENNETT CECIL WILLIAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-5147 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 1, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2238
MICHAEL H. BOSTRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MAURICE R. DUBOIS; JOHN E. BOYER, Plaintiffs, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-3154-H) Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: January 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael H. Bostron, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Michael H. Bostron appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law to the Commissioner in Bostron’s civil action in which he alleged employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bostron v. Apfel , No. CA-97-3154-H (D. Md. July 19, 2000). 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