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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         298,083
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                76,460
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   320
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    358,184
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         812,931
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           808,304
<LOANS>                                      2,785,935
<ALLOWANCE>                                     45,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,562,829
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,875,227
<SHORT-TERM>                                   255,163
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             46,201
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,471
<COMMON>                                        71,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     303,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,562,829
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                172,039
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               53,768
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               225,807
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              87,002
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,368
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          130,439
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,565
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (61)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                116,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,601
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      60,601
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,021
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.49
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,965
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,659
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   194
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                45,325
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,160
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,493
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               45,223
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            32,741
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         12,482
        

</TABLE>
DUK-2015.06.30-10Q-EX-10.2




Exhibit 10.2


Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Director Compensation Program Summary


 Annual Retainer and Fees. Effective May 8, 2015, the retainer and meeting fees paid to our outside directors will consist of:
	
					
	Meeting Fees

	Type of Fee
	Fee (Other Than for Meetings)
	In-person Attendance at Meetings Held in Conjunction With a Regular Board Meeting
	In-Person Meetings Not Held in Conjunction With a Regular Board Meeting
	Telephonic Participation in Meetings

	Annual Board Retainer (Cash)
	$90,000
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Board Retainer (Stock)
	$125,000
	 
	 
	 

	Board Meeting Fees
	 
	$2,000
	$2,500
	$2,000

	Annual non-executive Chairman of the Board Retainer, if applicable
	$100,000
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Lead Director Retainer, if applicable
	$75,000
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Audit Committee Chair Retainer
	$25,000
	 
	 
	 









	
					
	Annual Chair Retainer (Other Committees)
	$15,000
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee and Finance and Risk Management Committee Meeting Fees
	 
	$3,000
	$2,500
	$2,000

	Nuclear Oversight Committee Meeting Fees
	 
	$4,000
	$2,500
	$2,000

	Regulatory Policy and Operations Committee Meeting Fees
	 
	$3,500
	$2,500
	$2,000

	Other Committee Meeting Fees
	 
	$2,000
	$2,500
	$2,000
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30201]



[[Page 77597]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35885]


Peru Land Acquisition 2, LLC--Acquisition Exemption--Rail Line of 
The City of Peru, Ill.

    Peru Land Acquisition 2, LLC (PLA2), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the 
City of Peru, Ill. (Peru) ownership of approximately 3.5 miles of rail 
line (the Peru City Track), in Bureau and LaSalle Counties, Ill.
    According to PLA2, there are no mileposts associated with the line. 
The line was formerly owned by LaSalle & Bureau County Railroad Company 
and was subsequently sold to Peru. The trackage extends from a point of 
connection with Illinois Railway, LLC (IR), a Class III rail carrier, 
on its western end, to the end of the line west of Illinois Route 251.
    This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice 
of exemption in Docket No. FD 35886, Illinois Railway, LLC--Lease and 
Operation Exemption--Rail Line of Peru Land Acquisition 2, LLC, wherein 
IR seeks Board approval to lease and operate the Peru City Track, upon 
PLA2's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
    The transaction may be consummated on or after January 10, 2015 (30 
days after the notice of exemption was filed).
    PLA2 certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in its becoming a Class II or Class I 
rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
    PLA2 states that the acquisition agreement does not include any 
provision limiting PLA2's future interchange of traffic on the line 
with a third-party connecting carrier.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than January 2, 
2015 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35885, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel 
LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: December 19, 2014.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Raina S. White,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014-30201 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1
------------

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (SEC File #: 333-83504), filed on February 27, 2002, of our independent
accountant's review report dated July 20, 2002 relating to the unaudited balance
sheets of Composite Technology Corporation (SEC File #0-10999, CIK # 317477) as
of June 30, 2002 and 2001 and the related statements of operations and
comprehensive loss for the nine and three months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001
and the statements of cash flows for the nine months ended June 30, 2002 and
2001, which report has been submitted to management as it relates to the June
30, 2002 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB.

                                                   S. W. HATFIELD, CPA
Dallas, Texas
December 12, 2003
Exhibit 10.28




[English Summary]
 
 Land Use Rights Transfer Agreement
 
 Party A: Anhui Xingguang Investment (Group) Co., Ltd.
 Party B : Anhui Yida Tourism Development Co., Ltd.
 
 In order to invest and develop the Ming Dynasty Entertainment World project, Party B has been discussed with certain village committees regarding the land use rights for the project. Party A has previous entered into certain Land Use Rights Agreement with the village committees of Lilou Village and Hongta Village.  Now Party A agrees to transfer such land use rights to Party B.
 
 Party B shall be entitled to all the rights and shall assume all the liabilities own by Party A.
  Date of the Agreement:
 February 26, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         230,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               302,826
<PP&E>                                         120,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          379,492
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           73,755
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   451,938
<SALES>                                        441,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               450,707
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  455,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,770)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
 For the six month period endedJune 30, 2006Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
    
    $
    (62,744
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    343,554Total Earnings
    
    $
    280,810Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    341,036Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,020An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    1,498Total Fixed Charges before preferred dividends
    
    
    343,554Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    16,649Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    360,203Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    (A
    )Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
    
    $
    (62,744
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    273,339Total Earnings
    
    $
    210,595Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    270,821Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,020An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    1,498Total Fixed Charges before preferred dividends
    
    
    273,339Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    16,649Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    289,988Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    (A
    )
 
 (A)
    
    Due to the Companys pre-tax loss in the first six months of 2006, the ratio coverage was less than 1:1.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0029 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSE LUIS PERALTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 25 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2021

05/20/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0029
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

s1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145256

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145256

COA: 304046

Wayne CC: 10

- 005881

- FC

COREY JAMAL HARRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2012

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.
#### Ricardo Mendez, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and Carlos Brizuela, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 242]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about July 18, 2012, which, in an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, granted defendant Carlos Brizuela’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in determining that it could consider the emergency doctrine affirmative defense. Although the defense was not pleaded by defend*422dant Brizuela in his answer, the deposition testimony set forth facts that constituted an emergency situation and the facts were well-known to plaintiff (see *Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth.,*37 AD3d 157, 158 [1st Dept 2007]; *Bello v Transit Auth. of N.Y. City,*12 AD3d 58, 61 [2d Dept 2004]).

Here, defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish that he was faced with a sudden and unforseen occurrence that was not of his own making (see *Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth.,*77 NY2d 322, 327 [1991]). Plaintiff testified that he was riding his motorcycle in congested traffic conditions when he was unexpectedly thrown from his motorcycle after hitting a pothole while defendant was driving a minivan behind him. Plaintiff stated that he had been lying in the road for “less than a second” to approximately four seconds when he was hit by the minivan and that the van’s two front tires then went onto the sidewalk. Defendant testified that plaintiffs motorcycle was approximately six meters ahead of him when it fell, and that, after he saw the motorcycle fall, he turned his minivan towards the sidewalk to avoid plaintiff.

Given the parties’ testimony, the court correctly determined that defendant had met his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to summary judgment based on the emergency doctrine *(see Dattilo v Best Transp. Inc.,*79 AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept 2010]; *Coleman v Maclas,*61 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2009]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as he presented only unsubstantiated assertions and speculation that defendant may have breached a duty of care *(see Vitale v Levine,*44 AD3d 935, 936 [2d Dept 2007]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32096(U).]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00740-CR

Ex Parte Juan Luis BALTAZAR-PEREZ

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11,801

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 The court reporter has filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting an 

extension. We grant the request and ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record by 

December 9, 2022. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Order entered June 19, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-12-00460-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.G. A CHILD

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-10-09560



### ORDER

Appellee Shechinah Gardner’s September 20, 2012 motion for leave to file supplemental

brief for limited purpose of reques ting judicial notice of fact is DENIED

.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00653-CV

The Cameron County District Attorney in his Official Capacity representing 

the State of Texas

v.

JLM Games and GGL Vendor Leasing LLC

On Appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2017-DCL-7569-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellees, JLM Games and GGL Vendor Leasing 

LLC. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 14, 2019
#### Milton S. HANDLOS, Plaintiff, v. LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

No. 68-C-267.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

Nov. 24, 1970.

Kersten & McKinnon by Kenan J. Kersten and Arlo A. McKinnon, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.

Wickham, Borgelt, Skogstad & Powell by Edmund W. Powell, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

The defendant, Litton Industries, Inc., has applied for leave to bring in certain *301third-party defendants. Via a written stipulation, the plaintiff has assented to the entry of such an order.

Under Rule 14, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is discretionary with the court whether to allow a third party to be brought in at this late stage of the proceedings. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. National Surety Corp., 13 F.R.D. 201, 202 (E.D.Wis.1950). 3 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶14.05[1], at 507 (1968).

This case was commenced in September, 1968. The first hearing in open court on the status of this case was held on June 26, 1969, and a second such hearing was held on December 15, 1969. At the latter hearing, upon being advised that the parties were still engaged in discovery, the court set May 1, 1970 as the cut-off date for discovery. The court also advised counsel that the case would be set for pretrial shortly after May 1,1970.

When the case was called for pretrial on May 27, 1970, the court found that the parties had not as yet completed their discovery; therefore, the completion date for discovery was enlarged until the end of 1970. Counsel were advised that no additional extensions would be granted. Counsel were further informed that a pretrial in this case would be scheduled shortly after January 1, 1971, and that the court planned to set the case for trial early in 1971.

It thus appears that even on the present schedule, the case will not be ready for trial until 2i/¿ years after its commencement. The ease relates to a transaction that is alleged to have occurred in September, 1967. Under all these circumstances, it is my opinion that the proper exercise of discretion is to deny the defendant’s application to bring in additional parties at this late date.

If the defendant, Litton Industries, Inc., were permitted to bring in the Bendix Coi'poration and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, it is reasonable to anticipate that trial could not be reached early in 1971. Because of the long delay of the trial that would necessarily result from the bringing in of third-party defendants at this time, I conclude that the defendant’s application should be denied. Spaulding v. Parry Navigation Co., Inc., 10 F.R.D. 290, 291 (S.D.N.Y.1950).

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the application for leave to bring in third parties under Rule 14(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be and hereby is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1727 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 333
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1727

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2024

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 
Historical Park Commission Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK COMMISSION.

    Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act (16 
U.S.C. 410y-4(g)) is amended by striking ``40'' and all that follows 
through the period at the end and inserting ``on October 1, 2031.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 6, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 333

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1727

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 7, 2024

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```