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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          21,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,678,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                   823,058
<INVENTORY>                                  3,599,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,721,295
<PP&E>                                       8,123,604
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,041,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,125,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,434,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,045
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,256,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,125,483
<SALES>                                      3,194,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,194,619
<CGS>                                        3,590,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,590,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,887,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               823,058
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             210,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,259,076
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 26,863
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
ARBITRON INC.
 EXECUTIVE RETENTION AGREEMENT
 Agreement Amended
Effective Date Company you Parties
 Agreement Expiration Date
  1. At-Will Employment .
 2. Termination of At-Will Employment.
 General Section 409A Code
 Termination Without Cause; Position Diminishment.




---



##### 



provided however
 Bonus Component ) Exempt Bonus Compensation Committee Board
 provided that
  Change in Control
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Death or Disability.
 Release Requirement Release Release Effective Date th th
     Definitions
 Cause Cause
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Change in Control.
 Position Diminishment Position Diminishment
 Reference Compensation Reference Compensation
 Further Effect of Termination on Board and Officer Positions
 - 4 -




---



##### 



3. Effect of Section 409A of the Code
 Six Month Delay New Payment
Date
 General 409A Principles
 Expense Timing
 4. Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Assignment
 Confidentiality Confidential Information
 - 5 -




---



##### 



provided however
 Business Conduct and Ethics
 Disclosure
 Instruments of Assignment
 - 6 -




---



##### 



Additional Post-Employment Provisions .
 Survival
 5. Non-Competition, Non-Recruitment, and Non-Disparagement
 General
 Non-Competition
 Noncompete Period
 - 7 -




---



##### 



Non-Recruitment
 Non-Disparagement
 Enforcement
 Survival
 6. Clawback
  - 8 -




---



##### 



Recovery Measurement Period
 Option Gain
 Stock
Gain
  Dodd-Frank
  Survival
 7. Miscellaneous
 Notices
 - 9 -




---



##### 



If to the Company:
    
    Arbitron Inc.
Office of Chief Legal Officer
9705 Patuxent Woods Drive
Columbia, MD 21046If to you:
    
    At your last address on file with the Company
  No Mitigation/No Offset
 Waiver of Jury Trial
 Severability.
 - 10 -




---



##### 



Assignment. You specifically agree that any assignment may include rights under the restrictive
covenants of Sections 4 and 5 successor
 provided however
 No Oral Modification, Cancellation or Discharge.
 Other Agreements
 Survivorship.
 Beneficiaries.
 Withholding.
 - 11 -




---



##### 



Company Policies.
 Governing Law.
 Entire Agreement.
  ARBITRON INC.:By:Name
TitleEXECUTIVE:Name
 - 12 -
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 344 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the excise tax 

on liquified petroleum gas and liquified natural gas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize 

the excise tax on liquified petroleum gas and liquified 

natural gas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EQUALIZATION OF EXCISE TAX ON LIQUEFIED 

4 PETROLEUM GAS AND LIQUEFIED NATURAL 

5 GAS. 

6 (a) LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

8 4041(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i), 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 344 IS

1 by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii), and by in2 serting after clause (i) the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(ii) in the case of liquefied petroleum 

4 gas, 18.3 cents per energy equivalent of a 

5 gallon of gasoline, and’’. 

6 (2) ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF A GALLON OF

7 GASOLINE.—Paragraph (2) of section 4041(a) of 

8 such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(C) ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF A GALLON

11 OF GASOLINE.—For purposes of this para12 graph, the term energy equivalent of a gallon of 

13 gasoline means, with respect to a liquefied pe14 troleum gas fuel, the amount of such fuel hav15 ing a Btu content of 115,400 (lower heating 

16 value).’’. 

17 (b) LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

19 4041(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 

20 amended by subsection (a)(1), is amended by strik21 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the 

22 period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, 

23 and’’ and by inserting after clause (iii) the following 

24 new clause: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 344 IS

1 ‘‘(iv) in the case of liquefied natural 

2 gas, 24.3 cents per energy equivalent of a 

3 gallon of diesel.’’. 

4 (2) ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF A GALLON OF

5 DIESEL.—Paragraph (2) of section 4041(a) of such 

6 Code, as amended by subsection (a)(2), is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(D) ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF A GALLON

9 OF DIESEL.—For purposes of this paragraph, 

10 the term energy equivalent of a gallon of diesel 

11 means, with respect to a liquefied natural gas 

12 fuel, the amount of such fuel having a Btu con13 tent of 128,700 (lower heating value).’’. 

14 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

15 4041(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

16 1986, as redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is 

17 amended— 

18 (A) by striking ‘‘liquefied natural gas,,’’ 

19 and 

20 (B) by striking ‘‘peat), and’’ and inserting 

21 ‘‘peat) and’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to any sale or use of fuel after 

24 March 31, 2015. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 1006.

#### Continental Oil Co. *v.*United States.

May 20, 1946.

*Arthur B. Hyman*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch*and *Elizabeth B. Davis*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied.
Nicor Gas Company


Form 10-K


Exhibit 32.02





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nicor Gas Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  February 24, 2011

/s/ RICHARD L. HAWLEYRichard L. HawleyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### John R. Consedine, Respondent, v Portville Central School District et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[853 NYS2d 518]

Present-Hurlbutt, J.E, Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 99.4

 

 

 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

 

    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersignedSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Public ServiceCorporation hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report onForm 10-K of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for the year endedDecember 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Wisconsin Public ServiceCorporation.

 

 

/s/ Joseph P. O'Leary

_____________________________________

Joseph P. O'LearySenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerWisconsin Public Service Corporation

March 10, 2003

 

    This certification accompanies this Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.
No. 873.

#### Siegel *v.*United States.

June 10, 1946.

*Cyril Coleman*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   July 16, 2004                             Signed:   /s/ Donald M. Boone



Donald M. Boone, President/CEO/Treasurer









Date:   July 16, 2004                              Signed:   /s/ Michael C. Nasser



Michael C. Nasser, Corporate Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6051

CUPID C. SHAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLESTON COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; CHARLES

LUPTON; JIMMIE BLACKBURN; UNKNOWN MAN, in BMW

with Lupton & Blackburn,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-97-3350-2-18AJ)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cupid C. Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Cupid C. Shaw appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. Shaw’s case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Shaw that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Shaw

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Shaw has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Sanjuana UTTECHT, Petitioner v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Respondent.

No. 12-1680.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 22, 2013.

Filed: April 25, 2013.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Sanjuana Uttecht petitions for review of an order issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), reinstating a prior removal order against her. Upon careful review, we conclude that DHS properly issued the reinstatement order after confirming Uttecht’s identity and determining that she previously had been ordered removed and had not sought permission to reenter the United States. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (if Attorney General determines that alien has illegally reentered United States after having been ordered removed, prior removal order is reinstated); 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a) (factors to determine applicability of § 1231(a)(5)); *see also Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales,*437 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review reinstatement order). We also find no merit to Uttecht’s contention that her due process rights were violated because DHS did not provide her with a certain file. *See Zheng v. Holder,*698 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir.2012) (due process challenge in context of immigration proceeding is reviewed de novo); *Ochoa-Carrillo,*437 F.3d at 847 (to succeed on due process claim, petitioner must “prove that he was actually prejudiced by the lack of process afforded to him”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
Nos. 1192 and 1193.

#### Krug, Secretary of the Interior, et al. *v.*Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.

June 10, 1946.

*Solicitor General McGrath*for petitioners.

*Lawrence Cake*for respondent.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 38 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 38

  To ensure that long-term unemployed individuals are not taken into 
   account for purposes of the employer health care coverage mandate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Thune (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
   Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mrs. Fischer, and Mr. Blunt) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure that long-term unemployed individuals are not taken into 
   account for purposes of the employer health care coverage mandate.

    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 ``Helping Individuals Regain 
Employment Act''.

SEC. 2. LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR 
              EMPLOYER HEALTH CARE COVERAGE MANDATE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 4980H(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Exception for long-term unemployed 
                individuals.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The term `full-time 
                        employee' shall not include any individual who 
                        is a long-term unemployed individual with 
                        respect to such employer.
                            ``(ii) Long-term unemployed individual.--
                        For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
                        `long-term unemployed individual' means, with 
                        respect to any employer, an individual who--
                                    ``(I) begins employment with such 
                                employer after the date of the 
                                enactment of this subparagraph, and
                                    ``(II) has been unemployed for 27 
                                weeks or longer, as determined by the 
                                Secretary of Labor, immediately before 
                                the date such employment begins.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to months beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21 LIST OF
SUBSIDIARIES OF LE@P TECHNOLOGY, INC.A DELAWARE CORPORATIONAS OF MARCH 23,
2005 Subsidiary
    
    State
of IncorporationPrimary
      Care Medical Centers of America, Inc.
    
    DelawareSealcraft
      Operators, Inc.
    
    TexasCaribe
      Company
    
    DelawareSeal
      Properties, Inc.
    
    TexasCorpus
      Company
    
    DelawareSouth
      Corporation
    
    DelawareSeal
      Offshore, Inc.
    
    DelawareFirst
      Seal, Inc.
    
    TexasSeal
      (GP), Inc.
    
    DelawareParkson
      Property LLC
    
    Florida
#### HOLLYWOOD ASSOCIATES, Inc. v. MORRIS.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 9, 1952.

*142Samuel J. Stoll, Jamaica, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Harry Price, New York City, for defendant.

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

In this action for a declaratory judgment on a patent matter, the defendant has moved to dismiss upon the ground that there is no controversy between plaintiff and defendant. While not specifically labeled, the motion is one under Rule 12(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., based upon a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The existence of an actual controversy is necessary to establish jurisdiction under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, and this motion is an appropriate manner to challenge the allegations of jurisdictional fact. The jurisdictional facts having been so challenged, the plaintiff must support them by competent proof, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S. Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183, which may be submitted under Rule 43(e).

Both parties have submitted affidavits and certain supporting exhibits. Plaintiff’s affidavit sets forth several specific examples of the defendant’s threats of infringement suits against the former’s customers, and further indicates the fact that the plaintiff did exist and have customers at the time in question. Defendant’s affidavits are largely on information and belief and are not worthy of weighty consideration as contradictory of the plaintiff’s proof. Accordingly, I find that the plaintiff has sustained his burden of establishing the existence of an actual controversy between the parties, and the defendant’s motion will be denied.
----

| Subsidiary                                    | State of Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                                          |                   |
| Primary Care Medical Centers of America, Inc. | Delaware               |
|                                          |                   |
| Sealcraft Operators, Inc.                     | Texas                  |
|                                          |                   |
| Caribe Company                                | Delaware               |
|                                          |                   |
| Seal Properties, Inc.                         | Texas                  |
|                                          |                   |
| Corpus Company                                | Delaware               |
|                                          |                   |
| South Corporation                             | Delaware               |
|                                          |                   |
| Seal Offshore, Inc.                           | Delaware               |
|                                          |                   |
| First Seal, Inc.                              | Texas                  |
|                                          |                   |
| Seal (GP), Inc.                               | Delaware               |
|                                          |                   |
| Parkson Property LLC                          | Florida                |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      13,676,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,035,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,821,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,983,051
<PP&E>                                   1,169,703,535
<DEPRECIATION>                             204,004,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,069,413,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      131,211,460
<BONDS>                                    380,230,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,538,156
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,688,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,069,413,592
<SALES>                                    108,880,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           362,844,281
<CGS>                                       19,660,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              288,606,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            51,075,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          35,345,751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,384,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,972,393
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,412,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,412,099)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (52.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (52.69)


</TABLE>