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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 26, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 26, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                           2,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,499
<PP&E>                                         194,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                (60,370)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,494
<BONDS>                                        236,812
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,804
<OTHER-SE>                                    (66,153)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,424
<SALES>                                        133,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,114
<CGS>                                           34,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


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

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>            SEP-30-2000

<CASH>                          44,340,445
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    5,630,256
<ALLOWANCES>                       383,974
<INVENTORY>                    151,501,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                          66,288,306
<DEPRECIATION>                  27,724,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 273,483,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                     174,824,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   273,483,347
<SALES>                        265,680,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               265,680,931
<CGS>                          211,388,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  211,388,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                14,608,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 39,683,509
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             39,683,509
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  6,205,044
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    45,888,553
<EPS-BASIC>                        92.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                        92.97



</TABLE>
No. 68762 

FILED 

JAN 14. 2016 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MICHAEL THOMAS LITTLE, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB 

BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

STEVEN GRIERSON, CLERK FO THE 

DISTRICT COURT, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari, writ of 

prohibition and writ of mandamus. 

Petitioner Michael Little argues that there was insufficient 

evidence to support his misdemeanor convictions, the complaint contained 

the wrong code, and his due process rights were violated because the State 

did not agree to a continuance on the date of trial despite someone 

informing him by telephone that they would agree to a continuance. 

These claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of certiorari as 

NRS 34.020(3) limits this court's review of a misdemeanor appeal to 

challenges to the constitutionality or validity of the statute or ordinance 

passed upon by the district court. 

Regarding Little's claim that the clerk of the district court 

should be directed to cease issuing remittiturs from misdemeanor appeals 

prior to entry of a written order, this claim is moot as the prematurelyissued remittiturs in this case were stricken by the court, and we are 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ottro 6 -no-8 
Pickering 

to, J. 

confident that the clerk of the court will henceforth recognize that a 

remittitur from a misdemeanor appeal should issue only after entry of a 

signed, written order resolving the appeal. 

Regarding Little's request that Judge Bare be directed to 

recall the prematurely-issued remittiturs, this request is moot. The 

prematurely-issued remittiturs were stricken by the court. In a 

supplement to his petition, Little complains that Judge Bare erred in 

issuing signed, written orders before actually striking the prematurelyissued remittiturs. We have considered this claim, and we conclude that 

judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against 

issuing a writ to correct this alleged error.' See Redeker 1.). Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 164, 167, 127 P.3d 520, 522 (2006). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Cita! 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Michael Thomas Little 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'We further deny Little's request that the district court receive 

procedural training regarding the processing of misdemeanor appeals. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7553

RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 97-7843

RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT,

Respondents - Appellees.
2

No. 97-7844

RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 97-7845

RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-97-711-R)
3

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying several other

post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's orders and opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Palmer v.

United States Marshal CA-97-711-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 23, 1997). We deny

Appellant's motion for bail pending appeal and 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. Appellant's motion for reconsideration

of this court's order deferring action on the motion for bail is

now moot and is denied as such.

AFFIRMED
§ 507.80 Revocation of an order to withdraw a qualified facility exemption. An order to withdraw a qualified facility exemption is revoked if: ( a ) You appeal the order and request an informal hearing, FDA grants the request for an informal hearing, and the presiding officer does not confirm the order within the 10 calendar days after the hearing, or issues a decision revoking the order within that time; or
( b ) You appeal the order and request an informal hearing, FDA denies the request for an informal hearing, and FDA does not confirm the order within the 10 calendar days after the appeal is filed, or issues a decision revoking the order within that time; or
( c ) You appeal the order without requesting an informal hearing, and FDA does not confirm the order within the 10 calendar days after the appeal is filed, or issues a decision revoking the order within that time.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2230

In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner.

No. 20-2242

In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02211-BA)

Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

declaring the district court’s orders void. We conclude that Davis is not entitled to 

mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. 

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 

F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Davis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITIONS DENIED
§ 582.5210 Calcium oxide. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium oxide.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 05, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 05, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0336. FRANCHESKA E. LEWIS v. DEDA ALLEN.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2013/2016DR1245
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

d0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141362 & (23)(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141362 COA: 297479 Oakland CC: 2007-213521-FH TIMOTHY RONALD BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to ap peal the June 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for misc ellaneous relief is DENIED.
§ 582.1978 Carnauba wax. ( a ) *Product.* Carnauba wax.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4157]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from 
Covington & Burling on behalf of Union Pacific Corporation (WB468-11-1/
8/10), for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2008 Carload 
Waybill Sample. A copy of the request may be obtained from the Office 
of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Scott Decker, (202) 245-0330.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010-4157 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oakley, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jim Jannard, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Tom George, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby 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 his knowledge:

(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.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oakley, Inc. and will be retained by Oakley, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|/s/JIM JANNARDName: Jim Jannard
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 5, 2004     |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/THOMAS GEORGEName: Thomas George
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 5, 2004 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.2

                    AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT


     This Amendment is made as of August 10, 2000 by and between Exide
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and American Stock Transfer
and Trust Company, a New York corporation (the "Rights Agent").

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     The Company and the Rights Agent are parties to a Rights Agreement dated as
of September 18, 1998, as amended (the "Agreement").

     The Board of Directors of the Company has approved of the acquisition of
Pacific Dunlop GNB Corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pacific
Dunlop Holdings (USA) Inc. ("PD Holdings"), and related subsidiaries and assets
(the "GNB Business").

     As part of the purchase price to be paid by the Company for the acquisition
of the GNB Business at the closing thereof, the Company will issue to PD
Holdings 4 million shares of its Common Stock (as defined in the Rights
Agreement), which stock will constitute in excess of 15% of the Common Stock
outstanding on the date of issuance thereof.

     The Board of Directors of the Company has determined to permit PD Holdings
to acquire and increase its beneficial ownership in the Company up to 20% of the
outstanding Common Stock and has unanimously authorized the execution of this
Amendment in order to permit such ownership under the Agreement.

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereby
amend the Agreement by substituting the following for the last sentence of
Section 1(a) thereof:

          "Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) if any Person, together with all
     Affiliates and Associates of such Person, is on the date of this Agreement
     the Beneficial Owner of a greater percentage than 15% of the Common Stock
     outstanding, then as to such Person, Affiliates and Associates, such
     greater percentage (but no more) shall be deemed substituted for all
     purposes herein for 15%, (ii) as to the State of Wisconsin Investment
     Board, 20% of the Common Stock outstanding shall be substituted for all
     purposes herein for 15% and (iii) as to Pacific Dunlop Holdings (USA) Inc.,
     20% of the Common Stock outstanding shall be substituted for all purposes
     herein for 15%."


                              *     *     *     *
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to
be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

                              EXIDE CORPORATION



                              By:  /s/ John R. Van Zile
                                  Name: John R. Van Zile
                                  Title: Vice President and General Counsel


                              AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER AND TRUST
                              COMPANY



                              By:  /s/ Herbert J. Lemmer
                                  Name: Herbert J. Lemmer
                                  Title:  Vice President
```

Exhibit 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of M & F Worldwide Corp. (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd J.
Slotkin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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) 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/ Todd J. Slotkin
------------------------------
Name:   Todd J. Slotkin
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:   March 11, 2005
```
**Exhibit21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF LOUD TECHNOLOGIES INC.**

**As of December 31, 2005**

** **

** **
| **Subsidiary**                  | ** ** | **State of Incorporation or  Country in which Organized** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                      | ** ** | ** **                                                | ** ** |
| LOUD Technologies Canada Inc.   |       | Canada                                                    |       |
| LOUD Technologies (Europe) Plc. |       | UK                                                        |       |
| Mackie Designs Inc.             |       | Washington, U.S.A                                         |       |
| SIA Software Company, Inc.      |       | New York, U.S.A.                                          |       |
| St. Louis Music, Inc.           |       | Missouri, U.S.A.                                          |       |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7046
DEMETRIOUS ERIC BROWN, a/k/a Denrick Eric Brown, a/k/a Demmerick Eric Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; GENE M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director; REFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; S. J. AVENT, Administrative Assistant Warden; J. D. OATHS, Medical Administrator for the Virginia Department of Corrections; J. CAPPS, Human Rights Advocate; CHARLES ALLEN, Unit Manager; B. PHILLIPS, Medical Administrator for (CMS); ELLA KLUG, Regional Administrator for (CMS); BETH KENNEDY, Regional Manager for (CMS); MIKE PFEIFFER, Medical Operation Manager for (CMS); ANNETTE HOLMES, Medical Administrator for (CMS); K. HAMLIN, Head Nurse for (CMS); D. SLOAN, LPN FOR (CMS); C. MANNING, LPN for(CMS); ROY P. HARRIS, Prison Guard, Lieutenant; VINCENT M. GORE, Doctor for (CMS); M. VERNON SMITH, Doctor, Health Care Director; DOCTOR SWETHER; DOCTOR SALIH, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-144-AM) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 20012 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demetrious Eric Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Demetrious Eric Brown appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action alleging indifference to serious medical need. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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