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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,104,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,617,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,334,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,838,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          620,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,838,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,240,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,361,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (119,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                986,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            986,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   986,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    32.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.25


 


SIXTH AMENDMENT


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Sixth Amendment”) is executed April 28,
2009, by and between GeoPetro Resources Company, a California corporation (“Company”)
and David V. Creel (“Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.                         Company
and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated April 28,
1998 (the “Original Agreement”), to that certain First Amendment to Employment
Agreement dated June 15, 2000, and to that certain Second Amendment to
Employment Agreement dated May 12, 2003, to that certain Third Amendment
to Employment Agreement, dated January 1, 2005, to that certain Fourth
Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated December 29, 2008,  and to that certain Fifth Amendment to
Employment Agreement, dated December 31, 2008.  The Original Agreement, as amended through
and including the Fifth Amendment, is referred to herein as the “Agreement”.


 


B.                                     The
parties hereto now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, Company and Employee hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.               Effective Date. The effective
date of this Amendment shall be April 28, 2009 (the “Amendment Effective
Date”).


 


2.               The parties hereby amend the Agreement
as follows:


 


(a)               Term. Section 2(a) of
the Third Amendment to Employment Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in
full with the following:


 


5.         Term.
The terms of Employee’s employment under this Agreement shall commence as of January 1,
2005 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue until June 1, 2010 (the “Termination
Date”), unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 9
hereafter.  The period commencing as of
the Effective Date and ending on the Termination Date is hereinafter referred
to as the “Term”.


 


 3.    Integration.
To the extent of any inconsistencies between the terms and conditions of the Agreement,
this Amendment shall govern. Except to the extent that the provisions of the
Agreement are so superseded, they shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.     Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and
Employee have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


GEOPETRO
RESOURCES COMPANY


 


 


	
  /s/
  Stuart J. Doshi

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  David V. Creel

  
	
  By:  Stuart J. Doshi

  	
   

  	
  David
  V. Creel

  
	
          President &
  CEO
#### OSTRANDER, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 14, 1906.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District. Action by Emma Ostrander against the New York City Railway Company. From an order of the New York City Municipal Court setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff, she appeals. Reversed, and judgment reinstated. Robert H. Ernest, for appellant. James A. Quackenbush, for respondent.

PER CtJRIAM.

A careful reading of the record discloses no reason why the verdict should have been set aside. There was no motion to dismiss, and no exception to any part of the charge. The learned trial justice seems to have misapprehended the evidence. In his memorandum he states, as illustrating the plaintiff's unreliability as a witness, that she testified that she had never had a doctor before the accident. The minutes show (page 9) that she testified that Dr. Rixe had attended her previous to the accident. In some respects the motorman's evidence is in harmony with plaintiff's evidence, rather than with the conductor's. It does not appear from the order that the verdict was set aside as matter of discretion, and upon the whole case it seems that it should not have been disturbed. The order setting aside the verdict should be reversed, and the judgment reinstated, with costs.

GILDIDRSLEEVE and DOWLING, JJ., concur. DUGRO, J., taking no part.
EE-RMISTD-98-440 Ut i7 f Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 

## Do your constituents know about...

THE S TO PAY 

### $240 MORE PER WASHER?! $274 MORE FOR A/C?! $486 MORE FOR A HEAT PUMP?! THE 4(jJ6,9 TO BUY 

### PRODUCTS WE REFUSE TO BUY NOW?! Congress ofthe UniteJ States House ofRepresentatives Washington, DC 205JL5 

## Do your constituents know about...

THEMAtlQg"i: TOPAY $240 MORE PER WASHER?! $274 MORE FORAlC?! $486 MORE FORA HEAT PUMP?! THEMANIlD:' TO BUY PRODUCTS WE REFUSE TO BUY NOW?!
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

OMAR YUSUF DESANGES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (CR-95-46)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omar Yusuf Desanges, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Omar Yusuf Desanges (“Desanges”) filed a notice of appeal

seeking a review of his 1996 sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742

(2000). However, this statute is unavailable to Desanges, whose

conviction we previously affirmed on direct appeal. See United

States v. Desanges, No. 96-4561, 1998 WL 27149 (4th Cir. Jan. 27,

1998) (unpublished). Although § 3742 provides that a defendant may

directly appeal his sentence, the statute provides no mechanism

through which he or she may reopen a direct appeal. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal. 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
#### §§ 4287.371-4287.379 [Reserved]
#### § 29.1060 Steam-dried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco as customarily prepared for storage by means of a redrying machine or other steam-conditioning equipment.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 February 16, 2018

Order 

Clerk

February 16, 2018

157179(72)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 157179

v COA: 333343

Wayne CC: 15-007718-FC

TIFFANIE MONIQUE EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant for permission to 

exceed the page restriction for the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The 

application submitted on February 8, 2018, is accepted for filing.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-239-AW-MJF

TCH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The court earlier granted Plaintiff Alternative Materials’ motion for default 

judgment against Defendant Timothy Monroe. ECF No. 81. The issue of damages 

remained outstanding, and the court referred the matter back to the magistrate judge 

to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Id. The magistrate did so and has now issued a 

report and recommendation concluding that Alternative Materials is entitled to 

$150,000 in compensatory damages, plus pre- and postjudgment interest. ECF No. 

92. There has been no objection to that report and recommendation. 

Having carefully considered the matter, I conclude the report and 

recommendation (ECF No. 92) should be adopted, and I incorporate it into this order.

Final judgment cannot yet issue because there remain issues outstanding, 

including the claims against TCH Construction Group (which are stayed pending the 

bankruptcy) and Monroe’s counterclaim against Alternative Materials. 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 94 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on August 28, 2023. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 94 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF      BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

|   |   | 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 this                Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition                and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelo Massaro, Appellant.

Appeal unanimously dismissed as academic and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, to vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment, *sua sponte,*or on application by the District Attorney or the attorney who appeared for defendant (see *People v Mintz,*20 NY2d 770). (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — promoting gambling, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Page
      Twenty Two





Exhibit
32.1





Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive officer
of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.














/s/ C.E.
      PorterC.E.
      PorterChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      13, 2008
52.216-13 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]
#### Professional Health Services, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant. Rugby Funding, Ltd., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant. Rugby Funding, Ltd., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant.

Order, entered on February 17, 1970, disposing of motions by plaintiffs and cross motion by defendant, unanimously reversed on the law, to the extent appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed, with leave to plaintiffs to apply at Special Term for permission to replead. *(Cushman é Wakefield*v. *John David, Ino.,*23 A D 2d 827, 25 A D 2d 133.) The present, abbreviated complaint is legally insufficient in that it *“*does not comply with the minimal requirement of CPLR that the statements in a complaint must be *‘*sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series -of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense ’ (CPLR 3013). There is a failure to state the essential facts constituting the material elements of any cause of action ”. *(Menon*v. *Kennedy,*24 A D 2d 849.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern and Nunez, JJ.
#### § 610.11 Purpose and scope.

This subpart sets forth the equations and rules for utilizing the equations that are used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to predict soil erosion due to water and wind. Section 301 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA) and the Food Security Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3801-3813 specified that the Secretary would publish the universal soil loss equation (USLE) and wind erosion equation (WEQ) used by the Department within 60 days of the enactment of FAIRA. This subpart sets forth the equations, definition of factors, and provides the rules under which NRCS will utilize the USLE, the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE), and the WEQ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

PHYLLIS EILEEN RISCH FARREN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-00680-JLB-MRM

DARDEN CHEDDAR’S SCRATCH 

KITCHEN,

Defendant.

/

ORDER 

On September 8, 2020, this Court ordered the pro se Plaintiff, Phyllis Eileen 

Risch Farren, to show cause why venue is proper for this action in the Middle 

District of Florida. (Doc 3.) After receiving no response and independently 

reviewing the file, the Court now determines that venue is improper. Ms. Farren 

brought this sex discrimination claim against her former employer, Defendant 

Darden Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964. 42 U.S.C §§ 2000e–2000e-17. According to Ms. Farren’s pro se complaint, 

Darden Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen is in Pensacola, Florida, which is located in the 

Northern District of Florida. Title VII generally requires discrimination actions to

be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful 

employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial 

district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are 

maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the 

aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful 

employment practice.

42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f)(3). 

Case 3:20-cv-05853-MCR-MJF Document 4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2
2

After carefully reviewing the file, it appears the Middle District of 

Florida does not satisfy any of the criteria in Title VII’s venue provision. 

Venue is, therefore, improper in the Middle District of Florida. “The district 

court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division 

or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case 

to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a). Under the circumstances (and considering Ms. Farren’s pro se 

status), the Court finds that the interests of justice weigh in favor of 

transferring this case to the Northern District of Florida, where it appears 

this case could have been brought in the first instance.

Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this matter to the 

Northern District of Florida and close this Middle-District-of-Florida case. 

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on September 25, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-05853-MCR-MJF Document 4 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI
Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2008,  as
filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the  date
hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned officer of the Company,
certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted  pursuant  to
906  of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best  of  my
knowledge:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
section 13(a) 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 the Company.


Date:  February 13, 2008            /s/   JOSEPH R. ROZELLE
                                   ------------------------------
                                   JOSEPH R. ROZELLE
                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                   Principal Financial Officer


The  foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit  to
the  Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K  and
Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a)
and  (b)  of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United  States
Code) and,  accordingly,  is not being  filed as part of the Form
10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,  as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into  any
filings  of  the Company, whether made before or after  the  date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in  such
filing.
28.106-4 Contract clause.       (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.228-2, Additional Bond Security, in solicitations and contracts when bonds are required.                                          (b) In accordance with secti on 806(a)(3) of Public Law 102-190, as amended by sections 2091 and 8105 of Public Law 103-355 (10 U.S.C. 4601 note prec.), the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.228-12, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, in solicitations and contracts with respect to which a payment bond will be furnished pursuant to 40 U.S.C chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds (see 28.102-1), except for contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services as defined in subpart  2.1.    **Parent topic:** 28.106 Administration.
§ 51.3069 Very serious damage. *Very serious damage* means any defect which very seriously affects the appearance, or the edible or shipping quality of the avocado. Any one of the following defects, or any combination of defects the seriousness of which exceeds the maximum allowed for any one defect, shall be considered as very serious damage: ( a ) Cuts or other skin breaks when not healed and penetrating into the flesh of the fruit, or any skin break very seriously affecting the appearance, or the edible or shipping quality;
( b ) Pulled stems when the skin surrounding the exposed stem cavity is torn more than an aggregate area of a circle one-half inch in diameter, or when the flesh is torn;
( c ) Russeting or similar discoloration when the appearance of the avocado is affected to a greater extent than that of an avocado which has light brown surface discoloration aggregating 50 percent of the fruit surface;
( d ) Scars or scab when the appearance of the avocado is affected to a greater extent than that of an avocado which has light brown superficial, fairly smooth scars aggregating 50 percent of the fruit surface;
( e ) Sunburn when the appearance of the avocado is affected to a greater extent than that of an avocado which has greenish-yellow colored sunburn aggregating 50 percent of the fruit surface; and,
( f ) Sunscald or sprayburn when not well healed, or when the appearance of the avocado is affected to a greater extent than that of an avocado which has light brown superficial, fairly smooth scars aggregating 50 percent of the fruit surface.