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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL MEDICAL FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,285,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,233,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,174,210
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,162,371
<PP&E>                                      14,169,844
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,120,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,328,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,546,850
<BONDS>                                      2,824,316
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,972
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,989,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,328,075
<SALES>                                     26,648,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,648,687
<CGS>                                       24,300,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,300,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               625,488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               561,715
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (167,226)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,328,313
<INCOME-TAX>                                   531,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            796,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   796,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2780 

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted 

buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2009 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating 

to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United 

States Code. 

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 ‘‘Federal Restricted 

5 Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS. 

7 Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘§ 1752. Restricted buildings or grounds 

10 ‘‘(a) Whoever— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2780 IH

1 ‘‘(1) without authority to do so, knowingly en2 ters or remains in any restricted building or 

3 grounds; 

4 ‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or 

5 disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business 

6 or official functions, engages in disorderly or disrup7 tive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any re8 stricted building or grounds when, or so that, such 

9 conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly con10 duct of Government business or official functions; 

11 ‘‘(3) knowingly obstructs or impedes ingress or 

12 egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; 

13 or 

14 ‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical 

15 violence against any person or property in any re16 stricted building or grounds; 

17 or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as 

18 provided in subsection (b). 

19 ‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) 

20 is— 

21 ‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for 

22 not more than 10 years, or both, if— 

23 ‘‘(A) any person, during and in relation to 

24 the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dan25 gerous weapon or firearm; or 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2780 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bod2 ily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and 

3 ‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for 

4 not more than one year, or both, in any other case. 

5 ‘‘(c) In this section— 

6 ‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ 

7 means a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted 

8 area of a building or grounds— 

9 ‘‘(A) where the President or other person 

10 protected by the Secret Service is or will be 

11 temporarily visiting; or 

12 ‘‘(B) so restricted in conjunction with an 

13 event designated as a special event of national 

14 significance; and 

15 ‘‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the 

16 Secret Service’ means any person whom the United 

17 States Secret Service is authorized to protect under 

18 section 3056 of this title when such person has not 

19 declined such protection.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
voyaiu-ra4043unisexendorseme.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing










		
	VOYA INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY

Voya is a stock company domiciled in Iowa

	Unisex Endorsement






 


	
The Contract to which this Unisex Endorsement (this “Endorsement”) is attached is modified by the

provisions of this Endorsement. The Endorsement’s provisions shall control to the extent a conflict exists

between this Endorsement and the Contract. This Endorsement is effective as of the Contract Date and

remains in effect until the Contract is terminated.



The Contract to which this Endorsement is attached is amended by deleting all references to “sex.” The

following table replaces the Annuity Plan B Table: Life Income (Single Annuitant) table found in the

Contract Schedule of the Contract.





				
	
 	
Annuity Plan B Table: Life Income (Single Annuitant) 	
 
	
 	
Beginning of Month Payments per $1,000 	
 
	
Age of 	
 	
Life with 10 Year 	
Life with 20 Year 
	
Payee 	
Life Only 	
Period Certain 	
Period Certain 
	
50 	
$2.75 	
$2.74 	
$2.70 
	
55 	
3.09 	
3.07 	
3.00 
	
60 	
3.53 	
3.50 	
3.34 
	
65 	
4.12 	
4.04 	
3.73 
	
70 	
4.93 	
4.76 	
4.11 
	
75 	
6.12 	
5.69 	
4.40 
	
80 	
7.96 	
6.79 	
4.54 
	
85 	
10.82 	
7.79 	
4.58 




 


	
Factors for ages not shown will be supplied upon request.



All other provisions of the Contract remain unchanged.








	
IU-RA-4043
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                            15,777,088
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        864,217
<ALLOWANCES>                          93,796
<INVENTORY>                           30,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  17,958,231
<PP&E>                            65,488,685
<DEPRECIATION>                     7,113,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   128,791,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             11,110,961
<BONDS>                          105,000,000
<COMMON>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        (2,582,533)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     128,791,856
<SALES>                           56,895,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  56,895,461
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     51,681,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,600,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 7,460,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (4,058,032)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (4,058,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (4,058,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Monserate Maldonado, Appellant.

[860 NYS2d 73]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J., at plea; Brenda Soloff, J., at sentence), rendered February 28, 2007, convicting defendant of bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of U/a to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground of delay in sentencing *(see*CPL *345380.30 [1]; *People v Drake,*61 NY2d 359, 364-367 [1984]). After defendant absconded while awaiting sentencing, and the People learned that he was serving a sentence in Puerto Rico, they made reasonably diligent efforts to have him returned to New York. When these efforts failed, defendant was released from custody, and he remained at large in Puerto Rico despite his awareness of his continuing obligation to appear for sentencing in New York. The People’s duty to seek production of an incarcerated defendant is not implicated with respect to the delay that followed defendant’s release, during which time he resumed the status of an absconder. Accordingly, the lengthy delay in imposing sentence was “attributable almost entirely to defendant’s conduct” *(see People v McQuilken,*249 AD2d 35, 35 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 901 [1998]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

#### Randall L. Chapman v. James S. Graninger and Phyllis Graninger

August 28, 1985

By JUDGE JOHN A. JAMISON

It appears from the undisputed evidence that on January 30, 1985, Joyce H. Graninger, age 17 i, and Randall Chapman, age 22, attempted to enter into a marriage contract in the District of Columbia by exchanging vows in front of the Washington Monument. They spent one night together in the District of Columbia and cohabited for two weeks after such time in Virginia. Both Randall and Joyce have testified that they intended and mutually agreed to have validly married each' other at the time they exchanged vows.

On the same date, James S. Graninger, father of Joyce Graninger, swore out a warrant against Randall Chapman charging him with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Since Joyce Graninger has returned to school, she has resided with her parents. Mr. Chapman contends that Joyce Graninger is being held against her will by her parents and, therefore, he has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. However, Joyce Graninger’s testimony indicated that she is living with her parents of her own free will. Although the legal remedy used here, habeas corpus, is appropriate, the court has no intention of forcing Joyce to leave her parents’ home against her will.

In deciding upon the petition for habeas corpus, in reaching a conclusion, the court must analyze the validity of the attempted marriage. The District of Columbia does regularly recognize common-law marriages when *235couples who are legally and physically capable of entering into a marriage relationship, express their present intent to be husband and wife, followed by good faith cohabitation. This must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

The D. C. Statute, 30 D. C. Code 103 (1981 Ed), states that the age of consent in the District of Columbia is sixteen years for both males and females. In this case, both parties were over the age of consent under District of Columbia law, at the time of their marriage. All testimony indicated that they mutually agreed and did consummate their agreement. According to both the petitioner’s brief and the amicus curiae memorandum, the parties did cohabitate for two weeks after their return from the District of Columbia. The court must conclude from all of the evidence that Randall Chapman and Joyce Graninger have entered into a valid common-law marriage under the laws of the District of Columbia.

It is well established that a marriage valid where consummated, is valid everywhere, unless polygamous, incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statute. Accordingly, the court holds that this marriage is recognized as a binding one in Virginia.

The petition for the habeas corpus ad subjiciendum filed herein on February 21, 1985, will be granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7123

CURTIS J. BROWN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM HODGES, Governor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-1804-3-18AJ) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis J. Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 21, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 25, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Curtis J. Brown, Sr., a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Hodges , No. CA00-1804-3-18AJ (D.S.C. July 25, 2000). * 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Arrello Barnes, Petitioner, v Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of *1370Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 589]

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


       CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Wilsons
The Leather Experts Inc.


Date: September 16, 2002            /s/ Joel N. Waller
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Joel N. Waller, Chairman of the Board of
                                    Directors and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (principal executive officer)


Date: September 16, 2002            /s/ Peter G. Michielutti
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Peter G. Michielutti, Senior Vice President
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal financial and accounting officer)
**Exhibit 12.1**
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Rafael Mateo A., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F ofEmpresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A. (“Endesa Chile”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) designed such internal control overfinancial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c) evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
(d) disclosed in this report any changein the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: June 6, 2008.
**/**s/ Rafael MateoA.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46808-46809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21578]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2017-6008]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 92-34 Application for Short-Term Letter of Credit 
Export Credit Insurance Policy.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 
Sec. 635 (a) (1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im 
Bank assistance.
    The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export Credit 
Insurance Policy is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant 
and the transaction for Export Import Bank assistance under its 
insurance program. Export Import Bank customers are able to submit this 
form on paper or electronically.
    The application tool can be reviewed at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files//forms/eib92-34.pdf.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2017 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Mardel West, Export-Import Bank of 
the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-34 Application for Short-Term Letter 
of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-0009.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: This form is used by a financial institution (or 
broker acting on its behalf) to obtain approval for

[[Page 46809]]

coverage of a short-term letter of credit. The information allows the 
Ex-Im Bank staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the 
applicant and transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 11.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hr.
    Annual Burden Hours: 11.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: On occasion.
    Government Reviewing Time per Year: 11 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $468 (time * wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $561.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2017-21578 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00306-CR

MICHAEL WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1470552D)

December 20, 2018

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr