alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> AUDITED
FINANCIAL  DATA  SCHEDULE   
</LEGEND>  
<CIK>                                                  318716 
<NAME>                                        NUMEX CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
<CURRENCY>                                      U. S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                    APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             0
<CASH>                                                 14,981
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           9,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                             8,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       38,638
<PP&E>                                                216,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (197,856)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         69,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,972,101
<BONDS>                                               600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                           170,000
<COMMON>                                              659,275
<OTHER-SE>                                         (3,331,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           69,939
<SALES>                                               296,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      296,357
<CGS>                                                 155,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         808,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      351,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    203,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (464,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1,068,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        603,565
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (465,074)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.08)
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
[LEGEND]
THIS SCHEDULE HAS BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF 
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE" 
(FAS 128) AND CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996, AND THE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA 
FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND ARE
QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
[/LEGEND]
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         138,880
<SECURITIES>                                 1,008,933
<RECEIVABLES>                                  174,865<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     88,853
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,064,397
<PP&E>                                         796,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                 281,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,065,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          224,377
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,403
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,662,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,065,668
<SALES>                                        152,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,884
<CGS>                                           25,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               115,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,771
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,554
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,217
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32<F2><F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31<F3>
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE PRESENTED NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IN
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET.  THE PROVISION FOR LOSSES ON DOUBTFUL
ACCOUNTS IS NOT REPORTED AS A SEPARATE LINE IN THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME OR STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS. 
<F2>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF FAS 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Eleanor G. Fremont, Respondent, v. Rudolph E. Fremont, Appellant.

— In an action for a judicial separation 'brought by the plaintiff wife on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment, in which the defendant husband counter-claimed for an annulment of the marriage on the ground that, at the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was not validly divorced from her first husband, the defendant appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 21, 1963 upon the opinion and decision of the court after a non jury trial, which: (a) granted to the plaintiff wife a separation from the defendant; (lb) awarded her permanent alimony of $90 per week; and (e) dismissed the husband’s counterclaim for annulment. Amended judgment modified on the law and the facts as follows: (1) by striking out its first and second decretal paragraphs, which grant the plaintiff a separation on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment; (2) by striking out its third decretal paragraph, which awards $90 per week to the plaintiff as permanent alimony; and (3) by substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint on the merits. Findings of fact numbered 4 to 31, inclusive, and those numbered 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 43 are reversed. In lieu thereof, the following findings are made: (l) that the plaintiff failed to prove cruel and inhuman treatment of 'her by the defendant; (2) that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant abandoned her; (3) that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant left the marital abode without just cause and with*739out her consent; and (4) that the parties have been living apart .by their mutual consent. We also make the additional finding stated below with respect to the counterclaim. As so modified the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, since the proof does not establish cruel and inhuman treatment or abandonment but on the contrary does establish that the parties have been and are living apart by mutual consent, their rights must be governed accordingly. Under the circumstances, the wife is not entitled to a judicial decree of separation or to alimony *(Batchelor*v. *Batchelor,*295 N. Y. 544). We are also of the opinion that the husband’s counterclaim for annulment was properly dismissed. He has failed to overcome the presumption of validity which attaches to the decree of divorce which the wife obtained against her first husband in the State of Florida *(Ratkowsky*v. *Ratkowsky,*278 App. Div. 847). We make an additional finding to that effect. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                   Exhibit 23 -- Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8, Registration Statement
Nos. 33-28177, 33-42510, 33-49614 and 33-49616 dated May 4, 1989, August 23,
1991, July 10, 1992 and July 10, 1992, respectively, and in Registration
Statement No. 33-57780 on Form S-3 dated February 3, 1993, of our report dated
January 31, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Empi, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1995.



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 21, 1996

                                      41
Appeal No. 75-75.

#### Carolyn J. Baffoni *v.*Department of Health.

*Joseph A. Bevilacqua,*for plaintiff. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for defendant.

Petitions to extend time for transmission of record and to extend time for filing brief are granted, and the time is extended to April 30, 1975, in which plaintiff may file brief.
#### Eugene J. Keogh, Respondent, v. New York Post Corporation, Appellant.

Order, entered March 16, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff has presented no creditable excuse for the delay of 14 months in serving a complaint. Moreover, the affidavits submitted by plaintiff fail to include an adequate affidavit of merits (cf. *Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25, 31). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
Appeal No. 73-154.

#### George B. McClellan *et ux. v.*Marguerite E. Thompson *et al.*

*James M. Shannahan, David J. Kehoe,*for appellants. *Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, Victor J. Orsinger II, Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Michael DeFanti,*for appellees.

Petition for reargument denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.1



        AMENDMENT TO THE FOUNDER STOCK REPURCHASE AND VESTING AGREEMENT



     This FIRST AMENDMENT to the FOUNDER STOCK REPURCHASE AND VESTING AGREEMENT
(the "First Amendment") is dated April __, 2000 by and among PARADIGM GENETICS,
INC., a DELAWARE corporation (the "Company"), and SCOTT UKNES (the "Founder").

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Founder entered into the Founder Stock
Repurchase and Vesting Agreement dated as of February 12, 1998;

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Founder agree to amend the Founder Stock
Repurchase and Vesting Agreement in order to revise certain provisions therein;
and

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants
set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to
be legally bound, hereby amend the Founder Stock Repurchase and Vesting
Agreement and agree as follows:

     1.   The conditions of "Termination of Repurchase Rights" set forth
specifically in Section 5.3(a)(iii) is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:

     "(iii) Upon the closing of a firm commitment underwritten public offering
     pursuant to an effective registration statement under the 1933 Act covering
     the offer and sale of the Company's Common Stock at a price per share of
     not less than $6.00 (as adjusted for stock splits and the like effected
     after the date of this Agreement) and an aggregate offering price to the
     public of not less than $20,000,000, the Founder shall acquire a vested
     interest in, and the Repurchase Right shall lapse with respect to, the
     Unvested Shares as of such closing."

     2.  This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to its conflicts
of law provisions.

     This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts.


                                       1
<PAGE>

     Executed as of the date above written.


PARADIGM GENETICS, INC.:
------------------------


By: _____________________________
Name: __________________________
Title: ___________________________





FOUNDER
-------




_________________________________
Scott Uknes





                                       2
A05A0920.

#### CURRY v. THE STATE.

(616 SE2d 225)

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.

On September 30, 2003, Jermaine Curry pled guilty in the Monroe County Superior Court to robbery by intimidation and theft by receiving stolen property pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. That same day, the trial court sentenced Curry to serve ten years in confinement for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. Almost a year later, on September 8, 2004, Curry filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion. Curry appeals.

“It is well settled that when the term of court has expired in which a defendant was sentenced pursuant to a guilty plea the trial court lacks jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of the plea.”1 In the instant case, Curry pled guilty and was sentenced during the August 2003 term of Monroe County Superior Court.2 That term of court had expired, as had three subsequent terms of court, before Curry filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea during the August 2004 term of court.3 Because Curry filed his motion after the term of court in which *20he was sentenced had expired, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of his plea.

Decided June 23, 2005.

Jermaine Curry, *pro se.*

*Richard G. Milam, District Attorney, Jason S. Johnston, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Under these circumstances, Curry’s only available means to withdraw his guilty plea is through habeas corpus proceedings.4 Curry’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, however, cannot be construed to be a habeas corpus petition because it was filed in the county where he was convicted rather than against the warden in the county where he is incarcerated.5 The trial court therefore did not err in denying Curry’s untimely motion to withdraw his guilty plea.6

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin, C. J., and Barnes, J., concur.*

1

 (Citation omitted.) *Rice v. State,*277 Ga. 649 (594 SE2d 335) (2004).

2

 OCGA § 15-6-3(40.1) (C).

3

Id.

4

*Rice,*supra.

5

*Deloach v. State,*267 Ga. App. 472 (600 SE2d 414) (2004).

6

 See *Rice,*supra.
Part 686 – Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program, Subpart A:

Proposed regulations

Add to 686.2(d) Definitions:

High-Quality Teacher Preparation Program:  A teacher preparation program that is determined by the State to be an [effective or] exceptional teacher preparation program based on that State’s analysis of the criteria in §612.5 and that is reported as [effective or] exceptional in the State report card under §612.4.

**Proposed Amendments to the following definitions:**

TEACH Grant-eligible institution: An eligible institution as defined in 34 CFR part 600 that meets financial responsibility standards established in 34 CFR part 668, subpart L, or that qualifies under an alternative standard in 34 CFR 668.175 and--

(1) Provides at least one high-quality teacher preparation program at the baccalaureate or master's degree level that

also provides supervision and support services to teachers, or assists in the provision of services to teachers, such as--

(A) Identifying and making available information on effective teaching skills or strategies;

(B) Identifying and making available information on effective practices in the supervision and coaching of novice teachers; and

(C) Mentoring focused on developing effective teaching skills and strategies;

(2) Provides a two-year program that is acceptable for full credit in a TEACH Grant-eligible program offered by an institution described in paragraph (1) of this definition, as demonstrated by the institutions; or

(3) Provides a post-baccalaureate program of study.

TEACH Grant-eligible program: An eligible program, as defined in 34 CFR 668.8, that is a high-quality teacher preparation program that is designed to prepare an individual to teach as a highly-qualified teacher in a high-need field and leads to a baccalaureate or master's degree, or is a post-baccalaureate program of study. A two-year program of study that is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a high-quality teacher preparation program is considered to be a program of study that leads to a baccalaureate degree.

Teacher preparation program: A State-approved course of study, the completion of which signifies that an enrollee has met all the State's educational or training requirements for initial certification or licensure to teach in the State's elementary or secondary schools. A teacher preparation program may be a traditional program or an alternative route to certification, as defined by the State. For purposes of a TEACH Grant, the program must be provided by an institution of higher education.

**Grandfathering language:**

Add §686.3(c) to read as follows:

§  686.3 Duration of student eligibility.

* * * * *

(c)  An otherwise eligible student who received a TEACH Grant for enrollment in a TEACH Grant-eligible program before [July 1 of effective date year] is eligible to receive additional TEACH Grants to complete that program, even if that program is no longer considered a TEACH Grant-eligible program, not to exceed four Scheduled Awards for an undergraduate or post-baccalaureate student and up to two Scheduled Awards for a graduate student.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       49,784,989
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         51,177,199
<EQUITIES>                                   4,831,813
<MORTGAGE>                                   8,307,237
<REAL-ESTATE>                                7,559,725
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              77,149,472
<CASH>                                       3,408,179
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       4,433,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             125,451,879
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             75,312,702
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 789,093
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,788,285
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              9,980,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,693,338
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,701,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               125,451,879
<PREMIUMS>                                   6,140,783
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          7,139,580
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             252,635
<OTHER-INCOME>                              14,941,624
<BENEFITS>                                   6,669,357
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,132,298
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,669,049
<INCOME-TAX>                                   360,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,308,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,308,941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
**Issue Paper 2**

**Session 1:  November 13 – 15, 2017**

**Issue:**	Developing a regulatory framework for the process of submitting and evaluating a borrower defense to repayment (BD) claim

**Statutory cites:**§455(h) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

**Regulatory cites:**34 CFR 685.206(c)

**Summary of issue:**

Regulations currently in effect do not describe the process for a borrower to submit and the Department to evaluate a BD claim.  An ideal BD claim process should be easily understood, facilitate the submission of sufficient evidence to adjudicate the claim, establish clear expectations for the borrower and the school regarding next steps and timeframes, and assure claims are addressed fairly and equitably for both the borrower and the institution.  

Questions for consideration by the committee include:

· What process should a borrower follow to submit and establish a basis for a BD claim? 

· Should a borrower be granted an automatic administrative forbearance and should collection actions be stopped while his or her BD claim is being processed?

· What evidence should the borrower be required to provide to support a BD claim?

· What due process and notification requirements should the Department provide to an institution of a pending BD claim?  What opportunity should be provided for the school to respond to a borrower’s BD claim?

· Should the process differ depending on whether the school is open or closed?   

· Should the process provide an opportunity for borrowers with other Federal loans to consolidate those loans into the Direct Loan (DL) program to allow the borrower to raise a defense to repayment of those loans under the DL regulation?

1
#### Michel M. Segal et al., Appellants, v. Alexander J. Kulch et al., Respondents. Michel M. Segal et al., Appellants, v. Alexander J. Kulch et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellants perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before March 8, 1961. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.