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

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000317187
<NAME> PP&L, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        4,315
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        719
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,067
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,063
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,164
<COMMON>                                         1,476
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           44
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                262
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,782
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              295
<PREFERRED>                                        171
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,695
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 200
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      44
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      125
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         97
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    60
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   3,695
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    9,164
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,891
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               118
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,506
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,624
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            267
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  22
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     289
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            96
<NET-INCOME>                                       193
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         24
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      169
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             241
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### State v. Farrar

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 561

No. 527P06

1. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

*2:*AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 03/08/07

2. Allowed 03/08/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charlie Swan, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 917]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered December 14, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Zion Hia, Appellant, v New York City Department of Correction et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 51]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 8, 2012, which denied the petition seeking, inter alia, a declaration that respondent the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) acted arbitrarily in establishing an agency-specific civil service promotional list unique to respondent the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), from which list he was not selected for promotion, and granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On July 6, 2011, DCAS established a promotional list for DOC to fill the position of Administrative Construction Project Manager. The list identified two eligible candidates, one of whom was petitioner. As the eligibility list contained fewer than three names, DOC was not required to make a selection therefrom for promotion *(see*Civil Service Law § 61 [1]; Personnel Rules and Regs of City of NY [55 RCNY Appendix A] ¶ 4.7.1 [c]). The eligibility list was accessible to petitioner on July 11, 2011, through DCAS’s automated Interactive Voice Response System, to which petitioner was directed by both DCAS’s notice of examination and its notice of result. In addition, the list was *571published in The Chief Leader, a civil service oriented newspaper, on July 29, 2011.

DCAS’s determination became final and binding upon its promulgation of the eligibility list, at which time petitioner knew or should have known that he was aggrieved thereby *(see Matter of Martin v Ronan,*44 NY2d 374, 380 [1978]; *Matter of Johns v*Rampe, 23 AD3d 283, 284 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 715 [2006]). In the absence of any statute or regulation entitling petitioner to individual written notice of the eligibility list, no such notice was required *(see*Johns, 23 AD3d at 284-285).

As the petition was brought more than four months after the challenged determination became final and binding, it is time-barred *(see*CPLR 217 [1]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00177]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-63-2014]


Foreign-Trade Zone 44--Morris County, New Jersey; Authorization 
of Production Activity; Panasonic System Communications Company of 
North America (Laptop Computers); Rockaway, New Jersey

    On September 8, 2014, the New Jersey Department of State, grantee 
of FTZ 44, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to 
the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Panasonic System 
Communications Company of North America, within Subzone 44G, in 
Rockaway, New Jersey.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (79 FR 56058, 9-18-2014). The FTZ 
Board has determined that no further review of the activity is 
warranted at this time. The production activity described in the 
notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: January 6, 2015.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00177 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT
10.11.1
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA, INC. AND
MARTHA STEWART DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
  WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. Compensation Upon Termination.
 2. Section 409A.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA, INC.By:
    /s/ Wenda Harris MillardName:
    Wenda Harris MillardTitle:
    Co-Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Robin MarinoName:
    Robin MarinoTitle:
    Co-Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Martha StewartName:
    Martha Stewart 2
#### Glenn Davis et al., Respondents, v Breadstreet Holdings Corporation, Defendant, 350 Park Investors LLC et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Nastasi & Associates, Inc., Appellant-Respondent. (And Other Third-Party Actions.)

[961 NYS2d 781]

Appeals having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2012, and said appeals having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated September 20, 2012, it is unanimously ordered that said appeals be and the same are hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Folkenflik & McGerity, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 604]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 18, 2006, which assessed Folkenflik & McGerity for unemployment insurance contributions based on the remuneration paid to its paralegals.

The Commissioner of Labor issued an initial determination assessing the employer, a law firm, $4,351.63 in unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to several paralegals and one bookkeeper. The employer requested a hearing, objecting to that determination on the basis that the book*903keeper was not an employee. Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) sustained the employer’s objection and overturned the initial determination, and the Commissioner thereafter issued a revised determination. The employer then requested another hearing, contending that the issue of the paralegals’ status had also been determined in its favor by the ALJ during the previous hearing. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately found that, among other things, the employer’s original objection to the assessment of contributions had been limited to only the bookkeeper. As such, the Board sustained the Commissioner’s revised determination providing for contributions based upon remuneration paid to the paralegals. The employer now appeals.

The employer asserts that the Board’s decision is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the ALJ’s first decision resolved the issue of contributions based upon remuneration paid to the paralegals. We disagree. The record reveals that, when requested to specify the basis for its hearing request, the employer limited its objection to the status of the bookkeeper. Indeed, at the outset of the hearing, the employer confirmed that the focus of its objection pertained to the bookkeeper. It is further noted that the ALJ’s decision discussed only the bookkeeper and made no mention of the paralegals. Inasmuch as the only issue raised by the employer and resolved by the ALJ concerned the status of the bookkeeper, the Board’s decision relating to the paralegals is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(see Matter of McKenna [Can Am Rapid*Courier— *Sweeney],*233 AD2d 704, 705 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 810 [1997]).

We have examined the employer’s remaining claim, premised on timeliness grounds, and find it to be unavailing.

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Lahtinen, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc., Appellant, v Town of Cheektowaga, Respondent.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion by New York State Construction Materials Association, Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,492,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,602,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,224,957
<PP&E>                                         244,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,234,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,639,134
<BONDS>                                      4,120,054
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,855
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,471,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,234,316
<SALES>                                      7,758,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,758,317
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,306,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               379,241
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,466,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,117,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,349,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,349,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ultrak, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chris Sharng, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(c)      This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(d)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

  /s/ Chris Sharng
------------------------

Chris Sharng
Chief Financial
Officer
August 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2505 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2505

To require the Corps of Engineers to notify affected communities before 
     releasing water contaminated with cyanotoxins from flood risk 
             management structures, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

   Mr. Mast introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Corps of Engineers to notify affected communities before 
     releasing water contaminated with cyanotoxins from flood risk 
             management structures, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Toxic Health Threat Warning Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. RELEASES OF WATER CONTAMINATED WITH CYANOTOXINS.

    (a) Determination.--Before any planned release of water from a 
flood risk management structure, the Secretary shall determine whether 
the water is contaminated with cyanotoxins, based on tests conducted by 
the Secretary, another Federal agency, or the State in which the flood 
risk management structure is located.
    (b) Notification.--If the Secretary determines under subsection (a) 
that water to be released from a flood risk management structure 
contains cyanotoxins at levels greater than 8 parts-per-billion, the 
Secretary shall notify the public and affected governments of the 
determination and planned release, and any potential effects on human 
health, before releasing the water.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Affected government.--The term ``affected government'' 
        means a State, local, or Tribal government with jurisdiction 
        over an area that will be affected by a release of water from a 
        flood risk management structure.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

            1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust
                2007-HY3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

            2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a
                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
                make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
                which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
                to the period covered by this report;

            3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
                other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for
                the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
                Act periodic reports;

            4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
                servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                respects; and

            5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
                attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
                in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
                and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
                an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
                this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described
                in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
                10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
            information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
            The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

         Date: March 26, 2008

            /s/ Steve Bailey
            -----------------------
            Steve Bailey
            Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan
            Administration
            (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of Countrywide
            Home Loans Servicing LP)
#### State v. Goodwin

Case below: 183 N.C. App.-(1 May 2007)

No. 279P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1165)

Denied 08/23/07
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1893-1894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
    Title: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic 
(Parallel) Survey.
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Form Number(s): There are no forms. We conduct all interviews on 
computers.
    Type of Request: Emergency review.
    Number of Respondents: 28,000.
    Average Hours per Response: 0.5.
    Burden Hours: 14,000.

[[Page 1894]]

    Needs and Uses: At the request of the U.S. Congress, the Census 
Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning 
the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to be conducted in 
conjunction with the March Current Population Survey (CPS). This data 
collection will be completely separate and independent from the ASEC 
conducted in February, March, and April.
    This data collection will mirror that which was collected in survey 
year 2013, prior to the recent redesign of income and health insurance 
questions in 2014. The resulting data will serve to provide a baseline 
for comparison to data collected in February, March, and April from the 
2015 ASEC, which will consist of the redesigned questions.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and 
Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9.
    This information collection request may be viewed at 
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce 
collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d52544f5c424e687f70746e6e7472735d72707f3378726d337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1956504b58464a6c7b74706a6a7076775976747b377c7669377e766f">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-00454 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>