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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,785,923
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          21,108
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 11,253,500
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     75,849,553
<ALLOWANCE>                                    545,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,954,755
<DEPOSITS>                                  79,603,389
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,791,678
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            440,949
<LONG-TERM>                                  5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,483,870
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,634,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              93,954,755
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,047,262
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              313,695
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                10,626
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,371,583
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,483,592
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,666,567
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,705,016
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   60,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,574,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                420,165
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     420,165
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   295,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.72
<LOANS-NON>                                     99,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    16,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,373,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               540,158
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   60,000
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              545,518
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           470,586
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         74,932
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         91
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,532
<PP&E>                                           5,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,705
<SALES>                                          6,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,149
<CGS>                                            5,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       11
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    489
<INCOME-TAX>                                       171
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.070
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.069
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:06-cr-00182-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 10 of 10
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.202 Standards of grades for other agricultural products. Official Standards of the United States for any kind, class or grade of an agricultural product to be inspected must be used if such standards exist. Until Official Standards of the United States are fixed and established for the kind of agricultural product to be inspected, the kind, class and grade of the agricultural product must be stated, subject to the approval of AMS. If such standards do not exist for such an agricultural product, the following will be used: ( a ) State standards established in the State in which the warehouse is located,
( b ) In the absence of any State standards, in accordance with the standards, if any, adopted by the local board of trade, chamber of commerce, or by the agricultural product trade generally in the locality in which the warehouse is located, or
( c ) In the absence of the standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in accordance with any standards approved for the purpose by AMS.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-9689, styled The State of Texas v. Jesus Espinoza, pending

1

in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00570-CR

IN RE Jesus ESPINOZA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 27, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On August 4, 2008, Espinoza filed pro se original petitions requesting the issuance of a writ

of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus. Espinoza chiefly complains of the trial court’s refusal

to set his case for trial. Espinoza is represented by counsel in the trial court. Because Espinoza’s

complaints relate to his pending criminal case, we conclude that trial counsel is Espinoza’s counsel

for any mandamus proceeding on the issues presented. Espinoza has no right to proceed pro se and

be represented by counsel at the same time. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1995); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.
04-08-00570-CR

-2-

proceeding). Thus, Espinoza’s mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this

court’s review.

Additionally, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts are

authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal matters. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PRO.ANN. art.

11.05 (Vernon 2005). However, this court has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal

matters. See Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d); Ex parte

Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650, 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding); Dodson v. State, 988

S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Accordingly, the mandamus petition is denied and the habeas corpus petition is dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Brelia, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 924]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered October 13, 2004, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant waived his right to appeal, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years on each conviction, to run concurrent to a sentence he currently was serving. Upon realizing that the sentence imposed was illegal *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]), defendant reappeared before County Court, declined the opportunity to withdraw his plea and was resentenced in accordance with the modified plea agreement to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years, to run consecutive to his current prison term. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Our review of the record leads us to the same conclusion. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
This submission is without oral argument. Should the court determine that oral 1

argument is necessary, a hearing will be scheduled. If the nonmoving party fails to

respond, a final judgment may be entered without further notice or trial. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(e). The moving party's evidence may be accepted as true if it is not

contradicted by the opposing party. Id. The contradiction must be supported by

evidence which may include, but is not limited to, affidavits and depositions. Any

evidence, and in particular deposition testimony, must be cited to with specificity and

particularity. Id. If deposition testimony is submitted and relied upon, the parties shall

direct the court to specific testimony which either does or does not "set forth specific

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. Summary judgment may be

granted for either party if the evidence filed with the court shows that there is no material

question of fact and that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv658-ID

v. )

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP'T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is a motion for summary judgment, filed on March 26, 2007, by

Defendants State of Alabama Department of Transportation and Joe McInnes. (Doc. No.

13.) The plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a response to said motion on or before April

10, 2007. The defendants may file a reply, if desired, on or before April 17. Thereafter,

the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and all pleadings and evidence filed in

support of or in opposition to said motion, shall be DEEMED submitted to the court.1

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 16 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Pleadings submitted beyond the submission date will not be considered by the

court absent compelling exigent circumstances.

CONSIDERED and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 16 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### FREY, Appellant, v. BARNABY, et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Henry E. Frey, as administrator, etc., of Frederick Frey, deceased, against Frank A. Barnaby and William H. Van Schaick, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with ~10 costs and disbursements, on the authority of Cassavoy v. Pattison, 101 App. Div. 128, 91 N. Y. Supp. 876.
|  | Tribal Air            Recent 										Additions | 										Contact Us 										| 										Print 										Version 										Search: 										EPA                     Home > Air & Radiation> Tribal                     Air > Developing a Tribal Implementation                     Plan |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Developing a Tribal Implementation Plan
 EPA has just released Developing a Tribal Implementation Plan               (TIP) . This document will meet a real need for environmental professionals               just starting to build an air program and who are thinking about               developing a TIP. It will also serve as a Clean               Air Act resource for tribal leaders. We wish to thank the Tribal               air professionals who gave 3 days of their time to an intensive               review to make this product useful for Tribes.             

**Tribal Implementation Plan**
- Table of Contents ( PDF                        69K) 
- Front Matter ( PDF  143K) 
- Chapter 1 ( PDF  213K) 
- Chapter 2 ( PDF  158K) 
- Chapter 3 ( PDF  543K) 
- Chapter 4 ( PDF  819K)
- Chapter 5 ( PDF  348K) 
- Chapter 6 ( PDF  180K) 
- Back Matter ( PDF  11K)                     
- Appendices ( PDF  447K)                     

For more information, contact Julie McClintock at mcclintock.julie@epa.gov

 

Frequently         Asked Questions | Technical         Information
 
EPA Home | 				Privacy and 				Security Notice | 				Contact Us

 

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT BLANKENSHIP, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv648-MHT

) 

PFIZER, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to remand (doc. no. 22)

is set for submission, without oral argument, on August

21, 2006, with all briefs due by said date.

DONE, this the 8th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 25 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Horatio G. Onderdonk, Respondent, *v.*William Conselyea et al., Appellants.

(Argued June 19, 1884,

decided June 27, 1884.)

*James J. Thomson*for appellant.

*1). P. Barnard*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed. •
EX-10.1





Exhibit
10.1


EMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



Compensation of Non-Employee Directors

February 2009



			
	Annual Retainer	 	 — $40,000, paid quarterly (40%, or $16,000, automatically paid in deferred stock
units under the Deferred Compensation Plan discussed below)




Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Board — $100,000



Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee — $20,000



Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee — $10,000



Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Science & Technology Committee — $10,000



Board Meeting Fees — $2,500 for attendance in person, $1,000 for telephonic attendance




			
	Committee Meeting Fees	 	— $2,000 for attendance in person at a meeting occurring on a day other
than the day of either a Board meeting or another committee meeting for which a particular
director is compensated, or $500 for telephonic attendance






			
	Options	 — 	15,000 shares upon initial election (vesting 3,000 per year), exercisable at market
price on date of grant






5,000 shares per year upon each re-election, vesting after 6 months and
exercisable at market price on date of grant



Once vested, all options remain exercisable for six years from grant


Phantom Stock Deferred Compensation Plan — Each director may elect to designate all or a portion
of his remaining cash compensation to purchase phantom EMS share units at current market
prices. Cash payout occurs following retirement as a director or, for voluntary deferrals,
after 5 years, subject to the director’s limited right to further defer. Payment is based on
market value of the common stock at the time paid, and is taxable income to the director only
at that time.



Umbrella Liability Insurance — $3 million personal liability coverage above normal limits under
personally-maintained household/auto policies



Travel Expenses — The Company reimburses travel expenses incurred in connection with activities as
a member of the Board and its Committees. An additional $1,000 each way is paid to any
director traveling to or from a home located more than two time zones from the meeting site.



Liability Protection —




	 	•	 	Corporate D&O insurance ($20 million, primary policy from St. Paul)
	 
	 	•	 	$30 million additional coverage for the non-employee directors as a group
	 
	 	•	 	Georgia statutory exculpation provisions in Articles of Incorporation
	 
	 	•	 	Shareholder-approved indemnification (including for shareholder derivative
suit expenses and judgments)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

B.B., a minor, by and )

through his mother and )

next friend, OWENA KNOWLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv715-MHT

) 

PAWN CITY, INC., a )

corporation, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RULE 26(F) ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation,

imposed by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery

plan. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rule 26(f)

report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as

soon as practicable but not later than July 2, 2007.

The longstanding practice in this district is that

dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 90 days

prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

from that schedule, they should present, in the plan,

specific case-related reasons for the requested variance.

In their Rule 26(f) report, however, the parties should

assume that the 90-day requirement will apply.

This case will be set for trial before the

undersigned judge during one of that judge's regularly

scheduled civil trial terms, within 7 to 10 months of

this order if a term is available and, if not available,

then as soon as possible thereafter. The pretrial date

is normally set within four to six weeks of a scheduled

trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms

are available on the court's website located at

http://www.almd.uscourts.gov.

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference

before issuing a scheduling order. If the court holds a

scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the

scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow

the form of the uniform scheduling order adopted by the

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
judges of this court. The uniform scheduling order is

also available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35

of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DONE, this the 4th day of April, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 2 of 2