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

<ARTICLE>                  5


<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                 1,105,264
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             80,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,185,668
<PP&E>                                 2,858,512
<DEPRECIATION>                           344,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         3,704,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  1,057,800
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                               1,417,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           3,704,635
<SALES>                                1,496,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,663,995
<CGS>                                    596,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            596,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       145,391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          358,820
<INCOME-TAX>                             122,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             236,820
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .17


</TABLE>
Employment Agreement Option - Ric Florell



 Exhibit 10.39 
 June 14, 2005 
 Ric Florell 
 6026 Jamestown Park

 Orlando, FL 32819 
 Re: Employment Agreement
– Option 
 Dear Ric: 
 Pursuant to your Employment
Agreement dated June 26, 2002 under which you have been employed as Senior Vice President and General Manager, Resort Revenue Operations, we hereby exercise our option to extend the term for two (2) years, commencing on December 4,
2005 and continuing until December 3, 2007 such employment to be on all the same terms and conditions presently applicable to your employment. 
 Please
acknowledge your receipt of this letter and agreement to the foregoing additional term of your Employment Agreement by signing and returning one original of this letter to me. 
 Very truly yours, 
 UNIVERSAL ORLANDO 
 By: John Sprouls 
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 
  

							
				
	 /s/ Ric Florell
	 		 	   	 	 
	 Ric Florell
	 		 	 Date
### SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEM
Exhibit 32.2




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 Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 10, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Deborah Meinert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Deborah MeinertChief Financial OfficerAugust 02, 2010
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11

                          CENTRAL SPRINKLER CORPORATION

                            EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                   Year Ended       Year Ended      Year Ended
                                   October 31,      October 31,     October 31,
                                      1995             1994           1993
                                   ----------       ----------      -----------

Income before cumulative effect
  of accounting change                $8,458           $3,780            $2,376

Cumulative effect of accounting
  change to SFAS No. 109-
  Income Taxes                             -              238                 -
                                      ------           ------            ------


Net income                            $8,458           $4,018            $2,376
                                      ======           ======            ======

Average number of common shares
  outstanding                          3,902            4,953             4,677

Adjustment to exclude average
  unallocated common shares in ESOP     (672)               -                 -

Adjustment for assumed conversion
  of stock options                       152               51                33
                                      ------           ------            ------ 

Average number of common shares        3,382            5,004             4,710
                                      ======           ======            ======

Earnings per common share:

  Before cumulative effect of
    accounting change                  $2.50             $.75              $.50

  Cumulative effect of accounting
    change for income taxes                -              .05                 -
                                      ------           ------            ------

  After cumulative effect of
    accounting change                  $2.50             $.80              $.50
                                      ======           ======            ======
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 8, 2021

No. 04-20-00609-CV

OPUS AE GROUP, L.L.C.,

Appellants

v.

AKF GROUP, LLC,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-10826

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion, the parties’ joint motion to dispose 

of this appeal is GRANTED, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, and 

the case is REMANDED to the trial court for entry of a judgment in conformity with the parties’ 

settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). It is ORDERED that costs on appeal are taxed 

against the party who incurred them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). It is FURTHER ORDERED that 

the mandate issue immediately. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). 

It is so ORDERED on September 8, 2021.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of September, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41229

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK ROSS, also known as Pat,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-29-8

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Neal Ross appeals his sentence following his guiltyplea conviction for conspiring to distribute or possess with

intent to distribute cocaine base and for maintaining a place for

the purpose of distributing cocaine base.

Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that he

played a supervisory role in the offense and in applying a threelevel increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The evidence
No. 01-41229

-2-

showed that Ross directed the drug distribution of others at his

residence. The district court’s finding that he was a supervisor

is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d

322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Ross argues that the district court erred in denying him a

three-level reduction for his acceptance of responsibility,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, based on the “mere fact” that he

testified as a witness for the defense at the trial of a

codefendant. Ross is not being forthcoming with this court. The

district court found that he obstructed justice, pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, by testifying falsely at that trial. The

district court’s finding that Ross did not accept responsibility

because he obstructed justice is not clearly erroneous. Ross has

not shown that his case was an “extraordinary” one in which both

§§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 could have been applied. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.4).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Keith S. WaltersKeith S. WaltersChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 28, 2010 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such
filing.
# C_2010328EN.01005903.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/59

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Toth v Commission

(Case F-107/05) (1)

1

(Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Classification in grade - Grades laid down in the call for applications - Amendment of the rules governing classification of members of the temporary staff after publication of the call for applications - Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules - Transitional provisions - Application by analogy - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Proportionality - Principle of good administration)

2010/C 328/95

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gergely Toth (Besozzo, Italie) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers, subsequently by S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and R. Albelice, lawyers, and finally by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents, and subsequently by K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 on his appointment as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the European Commission’s decision classifying Mr Toth at grade A*6, step 2, contained in Article 3 of the temporary staff contract signed on 17 January 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Commission’s decision classifying Mr Toth at grade A*6, step 2, contained in Article 3 of the temporary staff contract signed on 17 January 2005;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 15. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-401/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)

1

---
### §6364. Establishment of Leave Bank Boards

(a)(1) Each agency that establishes a leave bank shall establish a Leave Bank Board consisting of 3 members, at least one of whom shall represent a labor organization or employee group, to administer the leave bank under the provisions of this subchapter, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management.

(2) An agency may establish more than 1 Leave Bank Board based upon the administrative units within the agency. No more than 1 board may be established for each leave bank.

(b) Each such Board shall—

(1) review and approve applications to the leave bank under section 6367;

(2) monitor each case of a leave recipient;

(3) monitor the amount of leave in the leave bank and the number of applications for use of leave from the bank; and

(4) maintain an adequate amount of leave in the leave bank to the greatest extent practicable.

(Added Pub. L. 100–566, §2(a), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2839.)
**Exhibit23.1**

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-78051) and Form S-8 (No.333-69827, 033-65142, 033-62718, 033-49704, 333-107932, 333-78051 and333-127394) of Hickory Tech Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2007relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthe Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our reportdated March 14, 2007 relating to the financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 14, 2007

----
### §7514. Regulations

The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose of this subchapter, except as it concerns any matter with respect to which the Merit Systems Protection Board may prescribe regulations.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1137.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.
#### Mme. After Sutton Cleaners, Inc., Respondent, v. Andrew Newman Custom Cleaners, Inc., Appellant.

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming an order of the Civil Court denying defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration reversed on the law and on the facts, with costs to appellant and the motion granted. The plaintiff sues on four promissory notes made to its order by the defendant in connection with the defendant’s purchase of plaintiff’s dry-cleaning business. Defendant seeks to stay the action contending that its alleged refusal to pay the notes presents a dispute within the contemplation of the arbitration clause eontamed in the agreement of sale. We *598agree. The agreement provides for the arbitration of any dispute as to the “validity or interpretation of this agreement or the performance or nonperformance” thereof. The alleged refusal by defendant to pay the notes given as consideration for the sale raises issues as to defendant’s “ performance or nonperformance” of the agreement of sale, which issues must therefore be arbitrated. *Matter of Wrap-Vertiser Corp. (Plotnioh)*(3 N Y 2d 17) does not compel a contrary result. In that case, unlike here, the party asking for relief sought damages arising from an alleged fraudulent inducement to contract. The court held that such contention raised no questions as to the validity, interpretation or performance of the agreement and thus the issues were without the arbitration clause. In this ease the party asking relief seeks payment on the notes given by defendant pursuant to the contract. The claim for payment of such notes does raise issues going to performance of the contract and are thus arbitrable. Whether a possible defense to payment may be bottomed on fraud in the inducement is of no moment in determining the appropriate forum for the resolution of the differnces existing between these parties. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Eager and Steuer, JJ.; McNally and Stevens, JJ., dissent in the• following memorandum: We dissent and vote to affirm on the authority of *Matter of Wrap-Vertiser Corp. (Plotnick*) (3 N Y 2d 17). The alleged misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement are not a part of the contract but anterior to it. Such misrepresentation and fraud raise no question as to the validity, interpretation or performance of the agreement within the language and meaning of the arbitratioin clause. The language of the arbitration clause in the case before us is not so broad as that in *Matter of Amerotron (Shapiro Woolen Co.)*(3 A D 2d 899, affd. 4 N Y 2d 722) where the claim was the goods delivered under the contract did not conform to the representations as to fiber content. The oases may thus be distinguished.
§ 705.20 Use of Navy material and facilities. ( a ) The loan of equipment and permission to use facilities will be dependent on the following: ( 1 ) The program support must be within the command's public affairs responsibility.
( 2 ) The loan of the equipment must not interfere with the military mission of the command.
( 3 ) Equipment must be available within the command or obtainable from another Navy command in the local area.
( 4 ) The event must be of the type for which participation is considered appropriate.
( 5 ) It must not be in any direct or implied competition with a commercial source.
( 6 ) There must be no potential danger to persons or private property that could result in a claim against the government. Safety requirements will be observed.
( b ) Use of open mess facilities will be permitted only under one of the following conditions: ( 1 ) Incident to the holding of a professional or technical seminar at the command.
( 2 ) Incident to an official visit to the command by a civic group.
( 3 ) Navy League Council luncheon or dinner meetings (not to exceed one per quarter per group).
( 4 ) Incident to group visits by the Boy Scouts of America, Boys Clubs of America, the Navy League Sea Cadets (by virtue of their federal charters), Girl Scouts and the Navy League Shipmates, and a few representative adult leaders.
( c ) Use of the official Navy flag will be in accordance with SECNAVINST 10520.2C and of official emblem in accordance with OPNAVINST 5030.11B.
( d ) Requests not meeting the criteria cited here, but which are considered by the officer in command to have merit, may be referred to the Chief of Information.
[41 FR 29101, July 15, 1976, as amended at 44 FR 6391, Feb. 1, 1979]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 22, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00490

- CV

Ken Paxton , in h is Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas

, and Jane Nelson, in her

Official Capacity as Texas Secretary of St ate

, Appellant s

v.

Harris County, Texas; and Clifford Tatum , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT S ’ MOTION

-- OP INION BY JUSTICE T RIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on August 14, 2023

. Appellant s have

fi led a motion to di smiss the appeal, and having con s idered the motion , the Court agrees that the

motion should be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the appeal

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
##### 



(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 R.H. Donnelley
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    Steven M. BlondyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    SVP and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 5, 2005
    
    August 5, 2005
  75
(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 Dex One Corporation as
of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ W. Kirk Liddell
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyW. Kirk Liddell
    
    Steven M. BlondyInterim Principal Executive Officer
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerAugust 11, 2010
    
    August 11, 2010
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(Mark One)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.       Yes [ X ]          No [    ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.  

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).         Yes [   ]        No [ X ]

 

As of May 5, 2006, there were 39,046,240 shares of ECD's Common Stock outstanding.

 

 

Page 1 of 51 Pages

 

----