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

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MOBILE
AMERICA CORPORATION 1999 10-K REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        29,303,564
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       43,620,471
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         43,511,416
<EQUITIES>                                   1,373,070
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              91,238,013
<CASH>                                       4,518,020
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           5,532,587<F1>
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      (2,047,989)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             144,305,443
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             33,643,295
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         32,893,437
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        7,321,749
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             12,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       191,110
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,448,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               144,305,443
<PREMIUMS>                                  44,171,359
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          5,390,681
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             263,711
<OTHER-INCOME>                               8,984,456
<BENEFITS>                                  32,988,250
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  2,393,143
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        14,770,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,658,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,613,359
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,045,285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,045,285
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              20,040,739
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         35,706,903
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                           (2,736,845)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          23,961,413
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            13,143,680
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             15,905,704
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                     (2,736,845)
<FN>
<F1>1997 RESTATED DUE TO CORRECTION OF REINSURANCE CEDING COMMISSION ALLOWANCE.
SEE NOTE 2 TO 1999 10-K REPORT.


</TABLE>
#### Millholland *v.*Bryant.

*Election.—Ballot.—Distinguishing*Marks.—The words “ Republican Ticket,” or“Republican County Ticket,” or “Republican Township Ticket,” upon the face of a ballot do not authorize the rejection of the ballot, under the 23d section of the registry act of 1.B67.

APPEAL from the Hendricks Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

This was a proceeding by the appellant against the appellee to contest his election to the office of township trustee. Before the commissioners, and also on appeal in the circuit court, the proceeding was dismissed, on the ground that there was no legal and sufficient ground of contest stated in the complaint filed. The errors assigned require us to decide upon the correctness of this ruling. The ground of contest stated by the appellant is, that all the bal*364lots cast for his opponent, the appellee, had upon' them distinguishing marks other than the names of the candidates and the office which they were to fill, in .violation of the twenty-third section of the registry law of 1867. The distinguishing marks, which were on the face of the ballots, were these: first, “republican ticket;” second,“republican county ticket;” third, “republican township ticket.”

*W. A. McKenzie, L. M. Campbell, M. M. Ray,*and-*Ray,*for appellant.

According to the opinion of this court, in *Druliner*v. *The State,*29 Ind. 308, and other cases following it, the question must be decided against the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1168

ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; CALVIN BALL, Howard County Executive; 

DEBORAH BARACCO, Executive Secretary, Individually and in her Official 

Capacity as the Head of the Animal Control Division; OFFICER S. FOX, 

Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Police Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN 

INDIVIDUALS, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Howard County 

employees participating in conspiracy,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00927-JRR)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Erin Brady Purdy, 

HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss Stoyanov’s civil claims and denying Stoyanov’s motion for sanctions. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Stoyanov failed to plausibly allege 

cognizable claims against Defendants. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009) (holding that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s allegations must “state[] 

a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility 

of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense”). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s dismissal order, albeit on alternate grounds.

*

 Stoyanov v. Howard 

Cnty., Md., No. 1:23-cv-00927-JRR (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2024). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* See Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing this court’s 

authority to “affirm . . . on any ground apparent on the record”).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Wilson & Spencer *v.*W. O. Hampton, Assignee.

Partnership Assignment — Parties in Suit.

Where a partnership consists of three persons, two of whom unite in making an assignment of the assets of the firm for the benefit of creditors, an action to collect debts due the firm by the assignee and remaining partner is properly brought and will not be dismissed because of misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

APPEAL, PROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

March 18, 1875.

*K. F. Prichard, Alf H. Gable, for appellants.*

*W. C. Ireland, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Coper:

No question can properly arise in this case as to the effect of the assignment, made by Wilson and Andrews, of the assets of the firm of Wilson, Andrews and Company, for the benefit of the creditor of the firm. The members of the firm, including Stock-well, who did not unite in the assignment, having joined with the assignee in suing for the debt, claimed against the firm, of Wilson & Spencer. It is not material whether the right of action was in the firm or in the assignee. Nor could Spencer make that question material by alleging that Stockwell had not united in nor assented to the assignment. If his failure to unite in the assignment or to assent to it, rendered it ineffectual to vest the right to the assets in Hampton, as assignee, then the right remained in the firm; and Hampton and the firm having united in the action, there can be no doubt that one or the other was entitled to- judgment; and no matter which may have the right, the judgment will protect Wilson and Spencer against the assertion of the same demand in another action, in the name of the firm or of the assignee.

Judgment *affirmed.*
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                               ALLTEL CORPORATION
                      EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

    This Amendment No. 1 to ALLTEL Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan, (the  Plan ), is effective as of January 29, 1998.

         1.  Article V is amended by adding at the end thereof a new section
to provide as follows:

              8.  Payment of Certain Accounts. Notwithstanding any Prior Plan
         Provisions or any other provision herein to the contrary (including
         the immediately preceding Section 7), in accordance with such
         procedures as the CEO or his designate shall in his sole discretion
         establish or approve, a person identified in Schedule 1 to the Plan
         (a "Schedule 1 Participant") shall be paid by the Company the
         "Payment Amount" set forth with respect to the Schedule 1 Participant
         on Schedule 1 (less applicable withholding) on or about
         February 28, 1998 in lieu of all other amounts that would otherwise
         be paid in accordance with the Plan to the Schedule 1 Participant
         after December 31, 1997 attributable to deferral elections of the
         Schedule 1 Participant made prior to January 1, 1998, subject,
         however, to the consent of the Schedule 1 Participant.

         2.  Schedule 1 in the form immediately following these resolutions is
added to the Plan following Exhibit C.


                                       75
# Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

                        You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish this determination in the                         *Federal Register.*

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

[FR Doc. 2014-29373

Billing code 4710-10
EXHIBIT 10.24
-------------

                          September 14, 1998


Mr. Gary Grottke
Amfac Property Investment Corp.
900 Michigan Avenue, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60611-1581

     RE:   Re: Amended Buy/Sell Notice: SMA Application

Dear Mr. Grottke:

     In the Buy/Sell Notice dated May 28, 1998 delivered to Tobishima
Pacific, Inc. ("TPI") pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Property Management
Agreement, as amended, Amfac Property Investment Corp. informed TPI that it
had elected to withdraw the application for the SMA permit for development
of a time share project on Lot 87 of Kaanapali North Beach Makai (the
"Application").  In my letter to you dated June 12, 1998, responding to
APIC's Buy/Sell Notice, TPI recommended that APIC defer execution and
delivery of the notice to the Planning Commission, Maui County, withdrawing
the Application (the "Withdrawal Notice").  APIC accordingly did not
execute and deliver the Withdrawal Notice.  On August 27, 1998, APIC
delivered an Amended Buy/Sell Notice to TPI.  In TPI's responsive letter
dated August 31, 1998, TPI elected to sell its interests in the Property
(as defined in the Amended Buy/Sell Notice) to APIC, but did not address
the Withdrawal Notice.

     TPI hereby confirms that APIC need not withdraw the Application.  TPI
further  confirms and agrees that APIC has properly exercised its rights
under Section 6.3 of the Property Management Agreement.  In addition, by
its execution below, APIC confirms and agrees that TPI has properly
responded to APIC under Section 6.3 of the Property Management Agreement.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       Tobishima Pacific, Inc.
                                       
                                       By /s/ MASAO KASHIHARA
                                          --------------------
                                          Masao Kashihara, 
                                          Its President

AGREED TO:

AMFAC PROPERTY INVESTMENT CORP.


By:  /S/ GARY GROTTKE
     ----------------------
   Name:  Gary Grottke
          ----------------
   Title: President
          ----------------
#### THE STATE v. WICKISER, Appellant.

Division Two,

November 17, 1903.

This is a companion case to the case of State v. Scott, reported at page 665 of this volume, and for the reasons given in that case the judgment in this case is reversed and the cause remanded.

Appeal from Holt Circuit Court. — How. *Gallatin Craig,*Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*Jno. W. Stokes*and *Petree Brothers*for appellant.

*Edward C. Crow,*Attorney-General, *Sam B. Jeffries,*Assistant Attorney-General, and *Jerry M. Jeffries*for the State.

FOX, J.

At the August term, 1899, the defendant in this cause was jointly indicted with one William Scott, by the grand jury of Holt county, charging them with stealing two head of cattle, property of Stephen and William Cunningham.

There was a severance granted and defendant Scott was first put upon his trial, which resulted in his conviction, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. Prom this judgment of conviction, defendant Scott prosecuted his appeal.

On May 7, 1902, the prosecuting attorney of Holt' county filed an information against the appellant in this case, charging him with the commission of the same offense as was charged in the indictment. The defendant in this cause was tried upon the information, which resulted in his conviction and punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary (which pun*675ishment was afterwards commuted by the court to two years).’

This is a companion case to the one against William Scott, ante, p. 665.

The only substantial difference in the two cases is that, as against this appellant, there was an effort to introduce certain confessions of the defendant, made to the prosecuting attorney and Cunningham, all of which were excluded by the court, except a short statement by the prosecuting attorney, which in substance was, “that Jack Scott and Mr. Stokes had promised to furnish him bail, and if they did not do it, he would squeal in this.” There was also the testimony of Oliver, to whom the hack was taken for repair.. He testified a little more specifically than he did in the Scott case, as to the condition of the hack, and as to seeing manure in the bottom of it. He does not pretend to state the character of manure; neither does Cunningham ; could not say whether it was manure from cattle or other animals.

The prominent facts upon which the State relies to support this conviction, with the exceptions noted, are shown by the same witnesses that testified in the Scott case. While the phraseology of the witnesses in this ease is somewhat different to that used in the Scott ease, their testimony is substantially the same, and it should be so, for they are the same witnesses, detailing their knowledge of the same transaction. The conclusions reached in the Scott cáse are decisive of this one.

Adopting the views as expressed in that case, the judgment in this case is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies thatto his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period endedSeptember 30, 2007 of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life InsuranceCompany of New York.

 
| November 5, 2007 |                                             |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|             |                                             |
|             | /s/ James E. Hohmann                             |   |
|             | James E. Hohmann                                 |
|             | Chairman, President and Chief Executive  Officer |
|             |                                             |
|             |                                             |
|             | /s/ John C. Pintozzi                             |   |
|             | John C. Pintozzi                                 |
|             | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer       |
|                  |                                                  |  |  |

 

E-5

----
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

[Letterhead of] 
 THE WASHINGTON
POST COMPANY 
 1150 15th Street, N.W.  •  Washington, D.C. 20071 

Personal and Confidential 
 June 25, 1999

 Mr. Tom Might 
 Cable One 

*** 
 Dear Tom: 

This confirms the special recognition we have awarded to you for your extraordinary efforts in building an increasingly valuable cable asset
for the company. 
 You have been awarded a special deferred payment in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000), payable at age 65
(on or about May 1, 2016.) The following additional features apply to this award: 
  

	 	a)	If you are still employed by Cable One or an affiliated company when you reach age 65, payment of this award will be deferred until such time as you terminate your employment with the company. The base award of
$2,000,000 will accrue interest beginning May 1, 2016 until such time as the full amount has been paid to you. The applicable interest rate will be the 12-month T-bill rate, set at each anniversary and carried forward. Interest will be credited
on annual basis and compounded annually. 

  

	 	b)	This award may be payable in several installments if requested by you and if approved by the Company. The first installment may begin no earlier than May 1, 2016 and installments may not be extended beyond a
ten-year period. 









	 	c)	Should you die after reaching age 65 but before receiving the full base award plus any interest accrued thereto, the balance of the monies owed will be payable to your estate in a single sum within 60 days following the
date of your death. Should you die before reaching age 65, the full amount of your award will be paid to your estate on or about May 1, 2016. 


This special award is in addition to any other annual or long-term incentive compensation you may earn under plans in which you participate.
This award is considered special compensation and as such is not included in compensation used to determine any of your employee benefits including your 401(k), pension or SERP benefits. 

Please also note that this award is an unfunded obligation of Cable One and will be payable from the general assets of the Company. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Donald E. Graham
	 Donald E. Graham
 Chief Executive
Officer

	
	/s/ Alan G. Spoon
	 Alan G. Spoon
 President and
COO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACOB ALLEN BROOKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0513-CG-M

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIM ACTION 11-00157-CG-M

)

Respondent )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, 

the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 56) is 

GRANTED, that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 52) is hereby DENIED, and 

that this action is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that, if Petitioner files a 

certificate of appealability, then it be DENIED as he is not entitled to appeal in

forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00157-CG-M Document 63 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 1
5

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEITH STILL, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00652-WS-B

WARDEN KENNETH JONES, :

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this petition be and

is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and that Petitioner is not

entitled to a certificate of appealability.

DONE this 10th day of May, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00652-WS-B Document 10 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 1
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, Chapter 9, Recommendations 1

Table 9–1. Crosswalk of Recommendations to Categories.

Responsible Community Application 

Relation to 

9/11 

Outcome 

Recommendation 

Area 

Recommendation 

Group 

Recommendation

Number 

Practices Standards, 

Regulations Codes, Enforcement Adoption & Study R&D/Further Training Education & All Tall Buildings Buildings Selected Other Related Unrelated 

1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

2 9 9 9 9 9 9

Increased 

Structural 

Integrity 

1 

3 9 9 9 9 9

4 9 9 9 9 9

5 9 9 9 9

6 9 9 9 9 9 9

Enhanced Fire 

Endurance of 

Structures 

2 

7 9 9 9 9 9 9

8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

10 9 9 9 9 9 9

New Methods 

for Fire 

Resistant Design 

of Structures 

3 

11 9 9 9 9 9

12 9 9 9 9 9 9

13 9 9 9 9

14 9 9 9 9 9

Improved 

Active Fire 

Protection 

4 

15 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

16 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

17 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

18 9 9 9 9

19 9 9 9 9 9 9

Improved 

Building 

Evacuation 

5 

20 9 9 9 9 9 9

21 9 9 9 9 9

22 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

23 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Improved 

Emergency 

Response 

6 

24 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

25 9 9 9 9 9 9

26 9 9 9 9 9

Improved 

Procedures and 

Practices 

7 

27 9 9 9 9 9 9
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, Chapter 9, Recommendations 2

Responsible Community Application 

Relation to 

9/11 

Outcome 

Recommendation 

Area 

Recommendation 

Group 

Recommendation

Number 

Practices Standards, 

Regulations Codes, Enforcement Adoption & Study R&D/Further Training Education & All Tall Buildings Buildings Selected Other Related Unrelated 

 28 9 9 9 9 9 9

Education and 29 9 9 9 9 9 9

Training 

8 

30 9 9 9 9 9