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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,787
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,759
<PP&E>                                          12,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,675
<BONDS>                                            116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,148
<SALES>                                         65,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,392
<CGS>                                           31,436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Delphi Financial Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned officers 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:

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

/s/ ROBERT ROSENKRANZ
------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Rosenkranz
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ THOMAS W. BURGHART
------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas W. Burghart
Vice President and Treasurer

March 15, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

February 27 , 2018

a0226 

# Order

Clerk February 27 , 2018

156986 & (13)(20)(27)(30)

In re ANGEL BARTLETT

___________________________________

LORRAINE POPE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 156986

COA: 341256

Allegan Probate Court:

ANGEL BARTLETT, 13

- 058016

- MI

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
I 

★

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 275 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundary of the 

Homestead National Monument of America, in the State of Nebraska, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2011 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the 

boundary of the Homestead National Monument of 

America, in the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homestead National 

5 Monument of America Boundary Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

8 acquire by donation or by purchase with donated or approVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:57 Jan 21, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H275.IH H275

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 275 IH1S 

1 priated funds, from willing sellers only, the lands or inter2 ests in lands as described in subsection (b), as generally 

3 depicted on the map titled ‘‘Homestead National Monu4 ment of America Boundary’’, numbered 368/80,039, and 

5 dated April 2007. 

6 (b) LANDS DESCRIBED.—The lands referred to in 

7 subsection (a) are— 

8 (1) the approximately 140 acres located south 

9 of the Homestead National Monument and owned by 

10 the Friends of Homestead; and 

11 (2) the approximately 160 acres known as the 

12 ‘‘Graff Parcel’’. 

13 (c) BOUNDARY REVISION.—The Secretary shall re14 vise the boundary of the Homestead National Monument 

15 to reflect the acquisition upon its completion. 

16 (d) ADMINISTRATION OF ACQUIRED LANDS.—Any 

17 lands acquired under this section shall be administered by 

18 the Secretary as part of the Homestead National Monu19 ment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2947 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

MAY 16, 2012 

Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry 

AN ACT 

To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held 

by the United States in certain land conveyed by the 

United States in 1950 for the establishment of an airport 

in Cook County, Minnesota. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2947 RCS 

1 SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST AND 

2 USE CONDITIONS, COOK COUNTY AIRPORT, 

3 COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 

4 (a) RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST RE5 QUIRED.—The Secretary of Agriculture, acting on behalf 

6 of the United States, shall release, without consider7 ation— 

8 (1) the conditions imposed on the use of the 

9 parcel of land originally conveyed by the Secretary 

10 pursuant to section 16 of the Federal Airport Act 

11 (Act of May 13, 1946, ch. 251, 60 Stat. 170) to the 

12 State of Minnesota by deed executed May 31, 1950, 

13 for the establishment of an airport in Cook County, 

14 Minnesota; and 

15 (2) the reversionary interest retained by the 

16 United States in connection with such conditions. 

17 (b) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary of 

18 Agriculture shall execute and file in the appropriate office 

19 a deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate in20 strument reflecting the release of the reversionary interest 

21 and conditions under subsection (a). 

Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[939 NYS2d 685]

#### Aidan Martin Doorley et al., Appellants, v Turner Construction Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 22, 2011

*64APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*John V. Decolator,*Garden City, for appellants. *London Fischer LLP,*New York City *(John Sparling*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered November 4, 2010, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The first-named plaintiff, a New York City police officer, allegedly was injured when he was struck by a metal hanger suspended from a so-called “plan rack” — a tubular device used by defendant to store blueprints and drawings — that was being wheeled on a city sidewalk to a construction trailer located about a block away from the accident site. We agree that summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action was warranted, since none of the regulatory violations alleged by plaintiff was applicable to the facts at bar *(see generally Gonzalez v Iocovello,*93 NY2d 539, 551 [1999]; *Brunelle v City of New York,*269 AD2d 347, 348 [2000]).

The conduct of defendant’s employees in pushing the plan rack on a city sidewalk was not the type of “construction operation” covered by the general safety provisions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-1009 (a), any more than the plan rack itself can be viewed as “construction equipment” as that term is used in various code safety regulations *(see e.g.*Administrative Code §§ 27-1012, 27-1017). Unlike the I-beam errantly placed across a sidewalk adjacent to the construction site in *Orlin v Colgate Scaffolding Corp.*(248 AD2d 114 [1998]) or the large piece of plywood that “bec[a]me airborne” and fell to the sidewalk from the upper floors of the construction area in *Verdugo v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership*(70 AD3d 600, 602 [2010]) — events held sufficient to establish violations of Administrative Code § 27-1009 (a) — the presence on the sidewalk of the rack or cart used here by defendant did not expose pedestrians in general or this plaintiff in particular to any enhanced construction-related risk of injury. In this sense, the plan rack created no greater or different risks than those posed by a file cabinet or other type of office equipment in transit.

*65Where, as here, there was no negligent failure to comply with a statute or ordinance, there can be no recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-e. Plaintiffs may, of course, continue to pursue their remaining common-law causes of action.

Shulman, J.E, Hunter, Jr., and Torres, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2955 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2955

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the requirement of 
  the Department of Defense to procure footwear from American sources.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2011

 Mr. Michaud introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the requirement of 
  the Department of Defense to procure footwear from American sources.

    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 ``American Shoes for American 
Servicemembers Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO 
              PROCURE FOOTWEAR FROM AMERICAN SOURCES.

    Section 2533a(b)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, including footwear,'' before ``and the 
        materials''; and
            (2) by striking ``(and the materials and components 
        thereof)'' and inserting ``, including footwear, and the 
        materials and components thereof''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

R.O., :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 256 M.D. 2020

:

Mr. Tyree C. Blocker, State :

Police Commissioner, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 26 , 2023

, upon consideration of

Petitioner’s application for re consideration

, and Respondent’s answer in

response thereto, the application is DENIED

.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### U.S. Geological Survey

          - [GX17GG00995TR00]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next meeting on October 10-11, 2017, at the Golden Hotel, 800 Eleventh Street, Golden, Colorado, in the Mesa Meeting Room. The Committee shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on matters relating to the USGS's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The Committee comprises members from academia, industry, and State government. In this meeting, the Committee will review the current activities of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and discuss future priorities.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST) on October 10, 2017, and 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on October 11, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. William Leith, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6712,                         *wleith@usgs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meetings of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee are open to the public.

*Public Disclosure:*                     Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.                

William Leith,

Senior Science Advisor for Earthquake and Geologic Hazards.

[FR Doc. 2017-20546 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion of our
report dated February 27, 2001, except with respect to Note 4, as to which the
date is March 30, 2001 included in Transcend Services, Inc.'s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2001 as well as the incorporation by
reference of such report into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements File Nos. 033-57072, 033-41361, 033-37685, 033-59115, 333-32587,
333-16213 and 333-78777.

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
February 28, 2002
DEMETRIUS ANTONIO BREWER

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1173

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. David P. Kreider , Judge

.
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS

, JAY

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### FIRST NAT. BANK OF CHICAGO v. STEINWAY et al.

(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

December 28, 1896.)

No. 15.

Federal Jurisdiction — Creditors’ Bill — State Judgment.

A federal court bas jurisdiction of a creditors’ bill between citizens of different states, though based upon the judgment of a state court, and notwithstanding the existence of statutory legal remedies in the state courts.

*662This was a creditors’ bill by the First National Bank of Chicago against William Steinway & Sons and others. The cause was heard on demurrer to the bill.

John Wilson, for plaintiff.

Cohen & Israel and Knox *&*Reed, for defendants.

Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

In Tube Works Co. v. Ballou, 146 U. S. 517, 523, 13 Sup. Ct. 165, 166, the supreme court said:

> “Where it is sought by equitable process to reach equitable interests of a debtor, the bill, unless otherwise provided by stati te, must set forth a judgment in the jurisdiction where the suit in equity is brought, the issuing of an execution thereon, and its return unsatisfied, or must make allegations showing that it is impossible to obtain such a judgment in any court within such jurisdiction.”

The bill herd conforms to these requirements, for it sets forth a judgment obtained in the court of common pleas No. 2 of Allegheny county, Pa., a writ of fieri facias issued thereon against the defendants therein, and a return of nulla bona. This is a creditors’ bill in the usual form, between citizens of different states, to reach equitable assets, and the amount in controversy is sufficient to sustain .the jurisdiction of this court. In our opinion the objection that the bill is not maintainable because based upon a judgment of a state court is not tenable. Putman v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, Fed. Cas. No. 11, 481; Wilkinson v. Yale, 6 McLean, 16, 18, Fed. Cas. No. 17,678; Gorrell v. Dickson, 26 Fed. 454; Buckeye Engine Co. v. Donau Brewing Co., 47 Fed. 6; Tube Works Co. v. Ballou, supra; Owens v. Gotzian, 4 Dill. 436, Fed. Cas. No. 10,634. Nor can we sustain the other ground of demurrer raised to our jurisdiction, namely, that statutory legal remedies are open to the plaintiff in the courts of Pennsylvania. The equity jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States cannot he taken away or diminished by state legislation. Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 592. In Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U. S. 202. 14 Sup. Ct. 75, it was distinctly held that a creditors’ bill to subject property of the debtor fraudulently standing in the name of a third party to the payment of judgments against the debtor is within the jurisdiction of a federal court, sitting as a court of equity, although, in the courts of the state in which the federal court sits, state legislation may have given the creditor a remedy at law.

The demurrers are overruled, with leave to the defendants to answer the bill within 30 days from this date.

BUFFINGTON, J., concurs.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00153-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.R.L.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-222,601

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellant and the Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG) filed a 

joint motion for reversal and remand of the order denying the appellant’s petition 

to challenge acknowledgement of paternity. The appellant and the OAG agree that, 

in the interest of justice, the case should be remanded to the trial court for genetic 

testing. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). They further request that each party be 

ordered to bear its own costs. Id. The custodial parent neither filed a notice of 

appeal nor filed an objection to the joint motion for reversal and remand. We 

vacate the judgment of the trial court without regard to the merits and remand the 

cause to the trial court for further proceedings. 
2

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

 

Submitted on November 24, 2015

Opinion Delivered November 25, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



LIDAK Pharmaceuticals:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-49082 on Form S-1, Registration Statement No. 33-71276 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 33-94370 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
33-76094 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-64983 on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement No. 333-24549 on Form S-3 of LIDAK Pharmaceuticals (a
development stage enterprise) of our report dated November 25, 1997, except for
the last paragraph of Note 6, as to which the date is December 29, 1997, which
report contains an explanatory paragraph referring to the status of the Company
as a development stage enterprise, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 
10-K/A of LIDAK Pharmaceuticals for the year ended September 30, 1997.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Diego, California
January 8, 1998