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 as of December 31, 1998, and statements of operations for the twelve
months ended December 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,413
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,106
<PP&E>                                         162,194
<DEPRECIATION>                               (109,988)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,620,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,722,629
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              600
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,889
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,109,959)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,620,159
<SALES>                                        203,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,571
<CGS>                                          156,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,907,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,992,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,992,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 14,423
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,978,342)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.91)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE READER'S DIGEST ASSOCIATION, INC.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Registration Nos. 33-37434, 33-56883, 333-57789 and 333-42726) on Form S-8 of
The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
August 14, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Reader's
Digest Association, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2001,
which report is incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2001.


/s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP



New York, New York
September 27, 2001
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41229

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUCAS VELASQUEZ-MATAMOROS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-420-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lucas VelasquezMatamoros has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Velasquez-Matamoros has not filed a response. We

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-41229 Document: 00512347875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Wendy Marie Me igs v. Todd Zucker and Bohreer & Zucker LLP

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 321

- C V

Trial court case number: 2017

- 73029

Trial court: 133rd District C ourt of Harris Cou n ty

On June 21, 2021, t he appellant filed a motion requesting an opinion from

the en banc court.

The en banc court denied reconsideration on April 6, 2021, and a panel of

this court denied the appellant’s motion to reinstate the case on June 15, 2021.

We hereby DENY the appellant’s motion for further opinion.

This case is closed. Should the appellant make additional filing s in this

case, the filings will be docketed but no further action will be taken by the court

in this closed case.

Justice’s signat ure: /s/ Gordon Goodman

Acting for the Court

Panel con sists of : Justices Goodman

, Landau

, and Hightower

.

Date: June 2 4 , 20 2 1
#### WEST CHICAGO ST. R. CO. v. ELLSWORTH.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 4, 1897.)

No. 358.

Appeal — Docketing Cases — Dismissal.

Rule 16 of the circuit court of appeals (11 C. C. A. evi.; 47 Fed. viii.), in respect to dismissing cases for failure to docket in time, will not he applied . where, before the motion is made, the cause has been actually placed on the docket.

*665In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error.

John A. Rose, for street-railroad company.

Elmer E. Beach, for defendant.

Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The citation in this case was issued September 15, and made returnable October 14, 1896. On the ensuing 39 th the judge who signed the citation made a nunc pro tunc order, as of the 14 th, extending the time for filing the record to October 24, 1896. Two days before the expiration of that time, the plaintiff in error caused the case to be docketed in this court, and on the next day a motion to dismiss the writ of error, because the case was not docketed in time, was filed. The case of West v. Irwin, 9 U. S. App. 547, 4 C. C. A. 401, and 54 Fed. 419, is cited in support of the motion. That case was explained and distinguished in the opinion upon the motion of Daenell, intervener, in Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Chicago & N. P. R. Co., 34 U. S. App. 626, 19 C. C. A. 477, and 73 Fed. 314. Rule 16 of this court (11 C. C. A. cvi.; 47 Fed. viii.), in respect to the dismissing of cases for failure to docket in time, is essentially the same as rule 9 of the supreme court (12 Sup. Ct. ix.), in respect to which in Owings v. Tiernan, 10 Pet. 24, that court said:

> “The rule of the court for docketing and dismissing causes has never been applied to any case where, before the motion was made, the cause had been actually placed on the docket.”

See, also, Gwin v. Breedlove, 15 Pet. 284; Bingham v. Morris, 7 Cranch, 99; and Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall, 103.

This court ruled the same way in the case of Chicago Dollar Directory Co. v. Chicago Directory Co., 24 U. S. App. 525, 13 C. C. A. 8, 11, and 65 Fed. 463, and in an earlier unreported case. In the First circuit a like ruling was made in Andrews v. Thum, 21 U. S. App. 459, 12 C. C. A, 77, and 64 Fed. 149; and in other circuits the decisions favor a liberal practice. Freeman v. Clay, 2 U. S. App. 151, 1 C. C. A. 115, and 48 Fed. 849; McClellan v. Pyeatt, 4 U. S. App. 98, 1 C. C. A. 241, and 49 Fed. 259; The Chatham, 8 U. S. App. 104, 3 C. C. A. 161, and 52 Fed. 396; State of Florida v. Charlotte Harbor Phosphate Co., 30 U. S. App. 536, 17 C. C. A. 472, and 70 Fed. 883; Jones v. Mann, 18 C. C. A. 442, 72 Fed. 85.

The motion is overruled.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2740 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain population 

census tracts for which information is not available as low-income communities for purposes of the new markets tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. DENHAM, and Mr. CARDOZA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain population census tracts for which information is 

not available as low-income communities for purposes 

of the new markets tax credit. 

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2740 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN POPULATION CENSUS TRACTS FOR 

2 WHICH INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE 

3 MADE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MARKETS TAX 

4 CREDIT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 45D of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(6) SPECIAL RULE FOR TRACTS FOR WHICH

9 INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE.—In the case of a 

10 population census tract with respect to which the 

11 Secretary determines there is insufficient informa12 tion to determine whether such tract is a low-income 

13 community (determined without regard to this para14 graph), such tract shall be treated as a low-income 

15 community if— 

16 ‘‘(A) such tract is adjacent to two or more 

17 low-income communities (determined without 

18 regard to this paragraph), and 

19 ‘‘(B) the Secretary does not have informa20 tion indicating that such tract is not a low-in21 come community (as so determined).’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 this section shall apply to investments made after the date 

24 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             971
<SECURITIES>                                     2,576
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                        39
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,715
<PP&E>                                           4,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,911
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,486
<SALES>                                          5,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,888
<CGS>                                              349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (46)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (22)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    148
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Amendment No. 1 to the UAL 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.30 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 UAL CORPORATION 

2008 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, UAL Corporation (“UAL”) has heretofore adopted the UAL Corporation 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, UAL has heretofore (i) entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger among UAL, Continental Airlines, Inc.,
and JT Merger Sub Inc. dated May 2, 2010, as amended (the “Merger Agreement”), and (ii) completed the transactions contemplated in the Merger Agreement on October 1, 2010 (the “Merger”), resulting in Continental
Airlines, Inc. becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of UAL, which changed its name in connection with the Merger to United Continental Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to (a) change the name of the Plan following the Merger, (b) reflect the
change of the Company’s name, and (c) reflect the listing of the shares of the Company’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange following the Merger; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement): 

1. Title of the Plan 
 The title of the Plan shall now be the “United Continental Holdings, Inc. 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan.” 

The reference in Section 1 of the Plan to “this UAL Corporation 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan” shall now
be a reference to “this United Continental Holdings, Inc. 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan,” and the reference in Section 1 of the Plan to “UAL Corporation” shall now be a reference to “United Continental Holdings,
Inc.” 
 2. Definitions 
 Section 2(i) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “(i) “Company” means United Continental Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, together with any successor thereto.” 

Section 2(q) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“(q) “NYSE” means the New York Stock Exchange.” 







 3. Replacement of the NYSE for NASDAQ 

The references in Sections 2(m), 3(a), 7(a) and 10(c) of the Plan to “NASDAQ” shall now be references to
“NYSE.” 
 4. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company acting pursuant to authority granted to him by the
Board of Directors of the Company has executed this instrument on this 21st day of February, 2011. 
  

					
	UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brett Hart

		 	Name:	 	Brett Hart
		 	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President, General
 Counsel and Secretary




  
 -2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          505723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   358607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     351399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1495967
<PP&E>                                         6050063
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4510361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3589921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1985825
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      861987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3589921
<SALES>                                        6125751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6125751
<CGS>                                          3580638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5329006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2816942
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              598824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2606952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                2896702
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2039145
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Edward D. Shames v. Checkered Flag Motor Car Co., Inc.

February 7, 1983

Case No. (Law) 12,115

By JUDGE BERNARD G. BARROW

The defendant has moved for summary judgment based on certain undisputed facts. On August 6, 1981, the plaintiff purchased a 1981 Toyoto automobile from the defendant. The contract of purchase limited the warranty extended to the plaintiff to the written "printed new vehicle warranty." This warranty provided that the manufacturer would either repair or replace, free of charge, any part that ". . . is defective in material or workmanship . . . ."

The plaintiff contends that he subsequently discovered a defect in the paint which he brought to the attention of the defendant. He also contends that he then revoked his prior acceptance to the contract. The defendant offered to repaint the areas in question, but the plaintiff refused the offer and still has possession of the automobile.

The provisions of an express warranty may exclude the existence of an implied warranty of fitness. *Va. Code*§ 8.2-316 (1965); *Marshall*v. *Murray Oldsmobile*Co., 207 Va. 972 (1967). The express warranty in this case excludes the existence of any implied warranty of fitness. Therefore, the plaintiff must rely solely on the manufacturer’s warranty that it will either repair or replace any defective part, and the defendant has offered to repair the automobile.

The plaintiff may revoke his acceptance only if the defect substantially impairs the value of the *81automobile to him and he has accepted it (1) on the reasonable assumption that the defect would be cured and it has not, or (2) he accepted the automobile without discovering the defect where he was induced to accept it either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the defendant’s assurances. See *Va. Code*§ 8.2-608 (1965). However, the plaintiff does not allege or otherwise contend the existence of such facts constituting the basis for revocation.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
Exhibit 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

ILLINOIS CENTRAL CORPORATION

         As   independent   public   accountants,   we  hereby  consent  to  the
incorporation  by reference  of our report  dated  January 19, 1998 (except with
respect to the matter  discussed in Note 2, as to which the date is February 10,
1998)  included in the  Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997, into Illinois Central Corporation's previously filed Form S-8
Registration  Statements File Nos. 33-41052,  33-51924,  33-54709,  33-57757 and
33-61095.








                                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





Chicago, Illinois
March 16, 1998
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### In re Estate of Walter E. Sampson

October 29, 1984

Case No. (Fiduciary) 9977

By JUDGE ALBERT H. GRENADIER

This case came on to be heard the 24th day of October, 1984, upon the motion of counsel for the defendant Finch for sanctions under Rule 4:12 of the Rules of Court. The Court has read the deposition in question and has considered the arguments of counsel.

It is the opinion of the Court that although some of the questions propounded were clearly irrelevant to the issues in this case, in the absence of some valid claim of privilege counsel for the petitioners does not have the right to order the witness not to answer such questions. No such valid claim of privilege exists in connection with this deposition.

The correct procedure is for counsel to note his objection, have the witness answer the question and have the court rule upon the objection later. This procedure obviates the need to reconvene the parties for a second deposition.

The name of the witness’s wife and the number of his children is clearly irrelevant. What the witness does in other cases is likewise irrelevant. The address of Ms. Gordon is the subject of an appropriate inquiry. Any questions that go to the issue of possible bias on the part of the witness are also admissible. At the hearing counsel for the petitioners agreed to furnish the names of other cases the witness has been involved with and the courts before which those proceedings took place. It may also be relevant to inquire as to the fees received by the witness- for his services in such cases. Mr. Dively’s fees, however, are not an appropriate subject of inquiry.

*249Accordingly, the Court will impose as sanctions against Mr. Dively the cost of reconvening and completing the deposition of Mr. Atkins, including an attorney’s fees of $100.00.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Drug Repurposing for Alzheimer's Disease.
    Date: October 17, 2017.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 
2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Anita H. Undale, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-747-7825, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#15747b7c61743b607b71747970557b7c7d3b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4858a8d9085ca918a80858881a48a8d8cca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20230 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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