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


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              $ 1,358
<SECURITIES>                                          5,254
<RECEIVABLES>                                        16,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                            642
<INVENTORY>                                          10,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     33,393
<PP&E>                                               58,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                       39,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       55,137
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                13,969
<BONDS>                                                 161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              1,342
<OTHER-SE>                                           38,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         55,137
<SALES>                                              89,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     89,746
<CGS>                                                68,174
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        68,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         (5)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       4,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,249
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   3,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          3,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          2.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          2.68
        

</TABLE>
11324.

#### Blackshear *v.*The State.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Accusation of larceny; from city court of Dublin—Judge Flynt. January 24, 1920.

One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was as follows: " Because the defendant, through his counsel, prior to announcing ready for trial on the call of the case, moved the court for a continuance therein, on the following grounds: This case was continued on Monday prior to the day actually tried, at the instance of the defendant, until a later day in the term, on account of three absent witnesses, their evidence being shown to the court to be material, and they haying been served with subpoenas to attend court, and said motion in all other respects complying with . . the Criminal Code of Georgia. At the time the court granted the *328continuance he set the case for a later day during the term. Capt. W. C. Davis, representing the State, then stated to the court that he would like to have the absent witnesses attached, and the court accepted this suggestion and stated that attachments should issue. The court reporter was excused from attendance on the court on that day, and it was he who usually issued attachments for witnesses, under the court’s instructions. On the day the case was called and tried, counsel for defendant moved for a continuance, because the witnesses were still absent, although the defendant stated he had seen two of them and they had promised to attend court. The court then inquired if'counsel for defendant had taken attachments for the witnesses, and counsel replied that he had not, because he understood that the court reporter issued the attachments and he did not know the reporter was absent on the Monday preceding. No attachments for the witnesses had been issued, and, on this fact being made known to the court, he ordered the case to trial. . . The court should not have charged the defendant with neglect or indifference in failing to have said witnesses attached, since it appears that for many years it has been the practice in said court for the court reporter to issue attachments for witnesses.” Affidavits were submitted in support of this ground of the motion for a new trial.

*327Broyles, C. J.

Under the particular facts of the case, the court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance; and the further proceedings were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*328
      *G. C. Bedgood, J. E. Burch,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. C. Davis, solicitor pro tem.,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

              

This schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the nine month fiscal  period ended January 31, 1998 and
the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and six months ended July 31,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1,000
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                         FEB-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                                     14,825
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               9,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           15,143
<PP&E>                                                        938
<DEPRECIATION>                                               (723)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             24,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       2,760
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                      (14)
<OTHER-SE>                                                (48,297)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              (24,310)
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              288
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            5,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (4,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (4,758)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (4,758)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (0.33)
                                                     

</TABLE>
[1] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHELTON M. FRYE, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0340-WS-N 

 ) 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

EDUCATION, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to stay during 

interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 81). The case is set for trial against defendants Escambia 

County Board of Education (“the Board”) and superintendent William Hines in August 

2010. Hines has recently taken an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order denying his 

motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination in the 

June 2008 selection of an assistant principal for Escambia County High School. Hines 

argued that he was protected by qualified immunity, but the Court ruled that, under the 

plaintiff’s version of the evidence, qualified immunity is not available. 

 The plaintiff opposes a stay on two grounds. First, he argues that a stay is 

inefficient because a verdict for the Board will effectively compel judgment for Hines as 

well and obviate a second trial. (Doc. 83 at 1-2). Maybe so, but a verdict for the plaintiff 

against the Board will not moot a second trial, so proceeding to trial now risks the very 

inefficiencies the plaintiff recognizes should be avoided. 

 Second, the plaintiff argues that the appeal is patently meritless because the only 

issue that could be presented is the long-decided one of whether intentional race 

discrimination violates clearly established law. (Doc. 84 at 3). Whether or not the appeal 

is meritless, proceeding to trial would be inefficient, as discussed above. Nor is it clear 

the plaintiff has accurately identified the only issue that could be argued on appeal. The 

Case 1:08-cv-00340-WS-N Document 85 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
[2] 

Court concluded that the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether the defendants’ articulated reasons for his non-selection were 

a pretext for race discrimination. Were the appellate court to rule that the plaintiff’s 

evidence, even if believed, would not create a fact issue as to race discrimination, it could 

rule that Hines did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that he therefore is 

entitled to qualified immunity.1 

 For the reasons set forth above and in the defendants’ motion, the motion to stay is 

granted. This action is stayed pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal and further 

Court order. The trial and final pretrial conference are continued indefinitely. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2010. 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1

 Such a ruling presumably would also be dispositive of the plaintiff’s claim against the 

Board, further counseling against any trial before the appellate proceedings are concluded. 

Case 1:08-cv-00340-WS-N Document 85 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4804

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources 

study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the memorial to Edmund S. Muskie located in Rumford, Maine, as a unit of 

the National Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2004

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

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resources study to determine the suitability and 

feasibility of designating the memorial to Edmund S. 

Muskie located in Rumford, Maine, as a unit of the 

National Park System.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING 

4 THE MEMORIAL TO EDMUND S. MUSKIE. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall con6 duct a special resources study to determine the suitability 

7 and feasibility of designating the memorial to Edmund S. 
2

•HR 4804 IH 

1 Muskie located in Rumford, Maine, as a unit of the Na2 tional Park System. 

3 (b) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section 

4 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall 

5 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required 

6 by this section. 

7 (c) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report 

8 describing the results of the study required by this section 

9 to the Committee on Resources of the House of Represent10 atives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Re11 sources of the Senate.

Æ
11340.

#### Bank of Donaldsonville *v.*Bowen.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Miller county — Judge Geer. February 14,-1920.

*R. L. Cox, P. D. Rich,*for plaintiff.

*N. L. Stapleton,*for defendant.

Bboyles, C. J.

1. In view of the counter-showing by the defendant, the alleged newly discovered evidence affords no ground for a new trial.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows cause for a reversal of the judgment below.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
No. 87-6237.

#### Cofield *v.*Burford et al.; and Cofield *v.*Hughes et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GRANITE
BROADCASTING CORPORATION'S 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCES
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,379,969
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,716,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,460,218
<PP&E>                                      34,644,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             624,150,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,662,983
<BONDS>                                    373,745,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      193,140,326
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,605
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,504,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               624,150,867
<SALES>                                     32,297,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,297,811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,584,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               537,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,982,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,806,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   150,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,956,772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (320,804)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,277,576)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### ASSOCIATED CONTRACT LOGGERS, INC.; Olson Logging, Inc., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Superior Wilderness Action Network; Forest Guardians, Appellees. Koochiching County; the Northern Counties Land Use Coordinating Board, Amici Curiae.

No. 00-1730.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 16, 2001.

Decided June 5, 2001.

Before MURPHY, LAY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Associated Contract Loggers, Inc. and Olson Logging Inc., filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota1 against the United States Forest Service and two not-for-profit groups, Forest Guardians and Superior Wilderness Action Network. Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed the suit on defendants’ motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The plaintiffs now appeal. Amici curiae Koochiching County *398and The Northern Counties Land Use Coordinating Board have submitted a joint brief in support of plaintiffs’ position.2

Finding that no error of law appears in the district court’s opinion, and that further opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm without discussion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. The Forest Service’s motion to strike portions of Amici’s brief is denied.
‹#›

Boulder

Colorado
Existing Context 

• Prosperous small town of 

100,000 

• Highly educated population

• Diverse economic base -

universities, federal research 

labs, tech startups, “silicon 

valley” of organic foods

• Consistently rated one of the 

best places in the United Stated 

to live, work, or play

• Internationally known for 

progressive land use planning, 

open space preservation, dual 

use greenways/floodways

• Arid climate

• Steep elevation gradient to the 

west

Insert image(s) depicting 

accumulating stresses 

and/or shock
Threats and Hazards

• Highest flash flood risk in 

Colorado

• Rapidly changing forest and 

alpine ecosystems

• High year round wildfire danger

• Exposure to global economic 

downtowns

• Traditional major shock trauma 

and hazmat incidents
‹#›

2013 Flood

• 8 days of rain, nearly the average 

annual total - 18”

• 1000 year precipitation event but only 

a 100 year flood event

• Access to mountain communities 

was severed along 6 of 7 canyons

• $300million in private property 

damage, $27million in municipal 

property, only $14million is 

reimbursable

• Not a flash flood or the event we 

were preparing for

• Preceded by major wildfires in 2010 

and 2011 
2013 Flood #2

• Green infrastructure is vital but not 

reimbursable!

• Ground water intrusion was 

completely unexpected

• Role of the open space boundary in 

transportation fragility, mutual aid, an

major shock trauma care

• Need for flexible municipal staffing 

and financial mechanisms

• Reinforcement of core principles: 

know your neighbor, have a plan, 

know your risk

• Rapid public burn out and return to 

complacency 
Resilience Planning in Boulder

• Building on a legacy of 30+ years of 

progressive land use planning and 

floodplain management

• Expanding the concept to include 

more social and economic dimensions 

of risk and vulnerability

• Incorporating resilience principles into 

the 2015 update of the Boulder Valley 

Comprehensive Plan and the Human 

Services Master Plan

• Producing a „Resilience Strategy‟ as 

part of the Rockefeller Foundation‟s 

100 Resilient Cities Global Campaign
The CRF 

looks at cities

through the lens of 

7 Qualities

4 Dimensions

12 Drivers

50 Sub-Drivers

© Arup, 2014

100 Resilient Cities

• Chief Resilience Officer

• Platform Technical Partners

• Global Network of Peer Cities
Coupling Resilience with Existing 

Community Priorities

• 1.Climate Wealth and Security

• Low carbon commitment

• Local economic driver

• Insulation from energy market 

volatility

• Distributed, redundant production

• 2. Local Foods

• Safe

• Secure

• Community identify

• Economic diversification
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         207,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (157,950)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,002
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,696
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (421)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

Annual CEO Certification(Section
303A.12(a))

As the Chief Executive Officer of
Mestek, Inc.,

and as required by Section 303A.12(a)
of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, I hereby certify that as of the date
hereof I am not aware of any violation by the Company of NYSEs Corporate Governance
listing standards, other than has been notified to the Exchange pursuant to Section
303A.12(b) and disclosed as an attachment hereto.

|Date: April 9, 2004 | By:                            
|------------------- | -------------------------------
|                    | Name:  John E. Reed            
|                    | Title:  Chief Executive Officer
11345.

#### Moses *v.*The State.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Tho evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the offense was committed in Macon county.

2. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, the failure of the judge to instruct the jury upon the subject of impeachment of witnesses is not error, unless a timely and appropriate written request therefor has been presented.

3. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every *reasonable*hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt, and the court did not err in refusing to set aside the finding 'of the jury.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*331Indictment for larceny; from Macon superior court — Judge Littlejohn. January *7,*1920.

*Jere M. Moore, John B. Guerry,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor-general,*contra.