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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       7,307,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,769,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,500,000
<PP&E>                                         241,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,785,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          810,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,826,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,785,000
<SALES>                                        689,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               589,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,125,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,582,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   817,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,765,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (2,087,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,852,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.79)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

December 13, 2013 

# Order

Clerk December 13, 2013

147932 ( 19 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 147932

v COA: 316819

Jackson CC: 09

- 005026

- FC

WILFRED MARTIN HADLEY

, Defendant

- Appell ant

.

_____________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing a brief in support of the application for leave to appeal is GR ANTED. The

supporting brief will be accept ed for filing if filed on or before December 31, 2013.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Salvato, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Aulisi, J.

Appeal upon a shortened record from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found that claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. Claimant was employed" by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as an agent. His job consisted of selling insurance, collecting premiums and servicing policyholders. He had no set hours and he was given $10 per week for the use of his automobile throughout the metropolitan area which was his territory. Claimant testified that twice a week, Tuesday and Friday mornings at 8:30, “ we must go in to make deposits, the money that we collect during the week, during the other days.” On Friday morning, January 18, 1963, shortly after 8:00 o’clock, while on the way to his employer’s office, claimant’s car skidded on ice and hit a tree causing claimant to suffer lacerations and broken ribs. At the time of the accident, claimant had in his possession his collections, unplaced policies and his collection records. Appellant argues that since the accident occurred while en route to a fixed place of employment it is noneompensable. It is urged that because on these two mornings claimant was required to make deposits at the office he reverted to the status of a regular inside employee. We do not believe that the Workmen’s Compensation Board committed error in rejecting this contention. The very nature of claimant’s employment, insurance salesman-collector, brings him within the classification of outside worker. His territory and hours were undefined, he received a weekly travel allowance and at the time of the accident his trip was incidental to his employment. There is no evidence that claimant was required to perform any duties at the office other than to hand in money. The circumstances in this case do not require the Workmen’s Compensation Board to adopt the narrow view that claimant stepped out of his regular character and became an inside worker simply because he was headed for his employer’s office when the accident happened (see *Matter of Monahan*v. *Remington Rand,*9 A D 2d 810, mot. for lv. to app. den. 7 N Y 2d 709; *Matter of Gottshall*v. *United Utilities & Specialty Co.,*275 App. Div. 736, mot. for lv. to app. den. 300 N. Y. 761). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

135801 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135801 

 COA: 271851 

Grand Traverse CC: 

DEAN WILLIAM JUNKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

 06-010011-FH 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 29, 2008 

 Clerk
```

                      Electro Rent Corporation
                            FORM 10-Q
                        February 28, 2003

                          Exhibit Index

Exhibit #   Description
---------   -----------
99.1        Statement Pursuant to Section 906 the Sarbanes-Oxley
            Act of 2002 By Principal Executive Officer Regarding
            Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act
            Filings

99.2        Statement Pursuant to Section 906 the Sarbanes-Oxley
            Act of 2002 By Principal Financial Officer Regarding
            Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act
            Filings

99.1

Statement Pursuant to Section 906 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
By Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act
Filings

Dated March 28, 2003

I, Daniel Greenberg, certify that the periodic report, to which
this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to
which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the registrant.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement
as of the date first written above.

/s/ Daniel Greenberg
Daniel Greenberg
Chief Executive Officer

99.2

Statement Pursuant to Section 906 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
By Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act
Filings

Dated March 28, 2003

I, Craig Jones, certify that the periodic report, to which this
Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to
which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the registrant.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement
as of the date first written above.

/s/Craig Jones
Craig Jones
Chief Financial Officer
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KELLY ETIENNE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2097

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

James H. Earp, Judge.

Kelly Etienne, Carrabelle, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to file a Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.800(a) motion in the lower court alleging that the sentencing judge erred in 

imposing a life sentence without parole eligibility after twenty-five years as required by 

section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1991).

SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000318852
<NAME>                        COLORADO WYOMING RESERVE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         241,455
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,823
<PP&E>                                         581,204
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (10,659)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 817,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,446
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,527
<OTHER-SE>                                     659,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   817,368
<SALES>                                          7,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,517
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             154,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (873,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (873,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (873,611)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)



</TABLE>
#### Noel DuMaurier, Respondent, v Lindsay-Bushwick Associates, L.P., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[835 NYS2d 235]

In an action, inter alia, to compel the determination of claims to real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the defendant Lindsay-Bushwick Associates, L.R, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated January 3, 2006, as, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for reargument of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, which was granted in a prior order dated August 29, 2005, in effect, vacated the prior order and denied the motion.

*461Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party seeking to obtain title to real property by adverse possession not based upon a written instrument must establish that the property was either “usually cultivated or improved” (RPAPL 522 [1]) or “protected by a substantial inclosure” (RPAPL 522 [2]). In addition, the party must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, the common-law requirements of adverse possession—that the possession was hostile and under claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years *(see Walling v Przybylo,*7 NY3d 228, 232 [2006]; *Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp.,*88 NY2d 154, 159 [1996]; *Hall v Sinclaire,*35 AD3d 660 [2006]; *Beyer v Patierno,*29 AD3d 613 [2006]; *Samter v Maggiore,*309 AD2d 741 [2003]). In this case, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, correctly determined that a triable issue of fact exists which precluded the granting of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Samter v Maggiore, supra).*Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.3(a)

                          INTERCOMPANY CREDIT AGREEMENT
                                  AMENDMENT #1

         This INTERCOMPANY CREDIT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT #1 (the "Amendment")
amends and modifies as follows that certain Intercompany Credit Agreement by and
between Carlson Companies, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("CCI"), and Carlson
Restaurants Worldwide Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CRW"), dated as of August
19, 1999.

1. The third sentence of SECTION 2.02 ADVANCES FROM CCI TO CRW is hereby deleted
in its entirety and replaced with the following:


         "The outstanding balance of all Advances from CCI to CRW and all of its
         Subsidiaries shall never exceed (i) $250,000,000 in the aggregate at
         any time prior to an initial public offering of stock of CRW, or
         (ii)$125,000,000 in the aggregate at any time after the application of
         the proceeds of such initial public offering of stock of CRW."

2. In SECTION 4.03 TERM OF THE AGREEMENT the termination date of December 31,
2001 is deleted and replaced with the termination date of December 31, 2002.

3. The Amendment shall be effective as of April 18, 2000.

4. As modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CCI and CRW have caused this Agreement to be executed April
18, 2000.


CARLSON COMPANIES, INC.                       CARLSON RESTAURANTS WORLDWIDE INC.

By:   /s/ John M. Diracles, Jr.               By:    /s/ Wallace B. Doolin
   -----------------------------------           ------------------------------
Title:   Vice President - Treasurer           Title:   President and CEO
      --------------------------------              ---------------------------

Date:     April 18, 2000                      Date:     April 18, 2000
     ---------------------------------             ----------------------------
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Albert Melvin Piatt, * From the 29th District

 Court of Palo Pinto County,

 Trial Court No. 14229.

Vs. No. 11-14-00238-CR * March 5, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.
§ 935.66 Court of Appeals. ( a ) The appellate judicial authority for Wake Island is vested in the Wake Island Court of Appeals.
( b ) The Wake Island Court of Appeals consists of a Chief Judge and two Associate Judges, appointed by the General Counsel as needed. The term of a judge shall be for one year, but he may be reappointed. The Chief Judge assigns matters to Judges, determines whether the Court sits individually or en banc, and prescribes rules of the Court not otherwise provided for in this part.
( c ) Sessions of the Court of Appeals are held in the National Capital Region at times and places designated by the Chief Judge. The Court may also hold sessions at Wake Island or in Hawaii.
( d ) A quorum of the Court of Appeals will consist of one Judge when sitting individually and three Judges when sitting en banc.
( e ) The address of the Court of Appeals is—Wake Island Court of Appeals, SAF/GC, Room 4E856, 1740 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1740.
#### HANTON v. GILBERT

No. 366P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 561

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement (No.333-151510, 333-141526, 333-121922, 333-112679,
333-83504) on Form S-8 of Composite Technology Corporation of our reports dated
December 14, 2010, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial
statements, the financial statement schedules (which includes an emphasis
paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as
a going concern and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to changes in the
method of accounting for depreciation on certain production equipment and for
the adoption of ASC 815-40) and internal control over financial reporting which
appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Composite Technology Corporation
for the year ended September 30, 2010.
 
 Our report dated December 14, 2010, on
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September
30, 2010, expressed an opinion that Composite Technology Corporation had not
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of September
30, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated
Frameworkissued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO).
 
 /s/SINGERLEWAK LLP
 
 SingerLewak LLP
 
 Irvine,California
 December14,2010
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
LEOPOLD R. BRANDENBURG, SR., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 2259

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in No. 1:22

- cv

- 02120

- BAH, Judge Beryl A. Howell.

______________________

Before P ROST

, H UGHES

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Leopold R. Brandenburg, Sr. brought this action challenging his separation from federal employment and the denial of a waiver from his obligation to pay back over $100,000 in unearned salary. The United States District
Court for the District of Columbia dismiss ed his complaint

. Mr. Brandenburg has appealed that judgment to this court.
Havi ng now considered the parties’ responses to this
court’s show cause order , we transfer the case to the United Case: 23-2259 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023BRANDENBURG v. U

. S

. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 2

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

. This appeal does not fall within the limited authority that Congress granted this co urt to review decisions of federal district courts. That jurisdiction generally extends to cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, s ee §1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) ; Bragg v. Keohane , 820 F.2d 402, 403

– 04 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

. And Mr. Brandenb urg’s case does not fit into any of those categories. Accordingly, we transfer to the
D

. C

. Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 1294(1) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

Th is appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

December 14 , 2023
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 23-2259 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023
Case: 1:12-cv-01163 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 3rd Quarter
10-Q for EMCEE Broadcast Products, Inc. for 1995 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         317,833
<SECURITIES>                                 1,567,220
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,881,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                   128,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,017,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,497,752
<PP&E>                                       2,976,620
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,023,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,666,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,408,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,563
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,177,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,666,629
<SALES>                                      9,523,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,523,529
<CGS>                                        5,978,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,310,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,094
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             112,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,189,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                   280,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   909,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>