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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets and unaudited condensed 
consolidated statements of income found on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Company's 
Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,754,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,608,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,018,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,453,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,493,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,759,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     3,871,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,452,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,529,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,493,000 
<SALES>                                      7,741,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,994,000
<CGS>                                        5,853,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,853,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,663,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (522,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (522,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (335,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.06)

</TABLE>
42804.

#### GATE CITY FURNITURE COMPANY v. RUMSEY.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “A signature may be made by an agent or other representative, and his authority to make it may be established as in other cases of representation.” *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—402 (1) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 257). The defendant’s filing of a general demurrer constituted an admission of all of the well pleaded allegations in the petition, among which was the allegation that the *drawer*had stopped payment on a check on his account, bearing his imprinted trade name, underneath which appeared the signature of his wife, who had the apparent authority as his agent or representative. In the absence of any pleading that she had no such authority to draw checks on his account, this must be construed as an admission of her authority. “Unless specifically denied in the pleadings each signature on an instrument is admitted.” *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—307 (1) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 256). Furthermore, even if the defendant had specifically denied her authority in any of his pleadings, which issue he seeks to raise for the first time in this court, the plaintiff would have- been entitled, as against the general demurrer, to go to trial with the presumption that the signature was authorized. *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—307 (lb).

2. “When signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense” *(Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—307 (2)), and even then if the plaintiff can successfully overcome any defense raised. *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—307 (3). Accord*754ingly, the trial court erred in its judgment sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

Submitted May 3, 1967

Decided May 19, 1967.

*Grubbs ■& Burke, Richard L. Powell,*for appellant.

*L. S. Cobb, Doyle C. Brown,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*
Exhibit 11


MARINER HEALTH GROUP, INC.
CALULATION OF SHARES (IN THOUSANDS) USED IN DETERMINING
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)

                                         Year Ended December 31,
                                         -----------------------
                                        1994      1995        1996
                                        ----      ----        ----
Weighted Average common shares
     outstanding                        18,911    22,502    28,721
Dilutive effect of Common Stock
     equivilents                           340       253       489
                                        ------    ------    ------
Total Weight average number of
     common and dilutive common
     equivilent shares outstanding      19,251    22,755    29,210
                                        ======    ======    ======

(1) Fully diluted income (loss) per share has not been seperately presented,  as
    the amounts would not be materially different from primary net income (loss)
    per share.
§ 303.85 Filing procedures. ( a ) *Filing notice.* ( 1 ) A notice required under this subpart shall be filed with the appropriate FDIC office and shall contain all the information required by paragraph 6 of the CBCA, section 7(j) of the FDI Act, (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(6)), or prescribed in the designated interagency forms which may be obtained from any FDIC regional director.
( 2 ) The FDIC may waive any of the informational requirements of the notice if the FDIC determines that it is in the public interest.
( 3 ) A notificant shall notify the appropriate FDIC office immediately of any material changes in the information contained in a notice submitted to the FDIC, including changes in financial or other conditions.
( 4 ) When the acquiring person is an individual, or group of individuals acting in concert, the requirement to provide personal financial data may be satisfied by a current statement of assets and liabilities and an income summary, as required in the designated interagency form, together with a statement of any material changes since the date of the statement or summary. The FDIC may require additional information if appropriate.
( b ) *Other laws.* Nothing in this subpart shall affect any obligation which the acquiring person(s) may have to comply with the federal securities laws or other laws.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 293 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 293

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking a child 
                   hostage in order to evade arrest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

  Mrs. Kelly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking a child 
                   hostage in order to evade arrest.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CHILD HOSTAGE-TAKING TO EVADE ARREST OR OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 1205. Child hostage-taking to evade arrest or obstruct justice
    ``(a) In General.--Whoever uses force or threatens to use force 
against any officer or agency of the Federal Government, and seizes or 
detains, or continues to detain, a child in order to--
            ``(1) obstruct, resist, or oppose any officer of the United 
        States, or other person duly authorized, in serving, or 
        attempting to serve or execute, any legal or judicial writ, 
        process, or warrant of any court of the United States; or
            ``(2) compel any department or agency of the Federal 
        Government to do or to abstain from doing any act;
or attempts to do so, shall be punished in accordance with subsection 
(b).
    ``(b) Sentencing.--Any person who violates subsection (a)--
            ``(1) shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years and not 
        more than 25 years;
            ``(2) if injury results to the child as a result of the 
        violation, shall be imprisoned not less than 20 years and not 
        more than 35 years; and
            ``(3) if death results to the child as a result of the 
        violation, shall be subject to the penalty of death or be 
        imprisoned for life.
    ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term `child' 
means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 55 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item:

``1205. Child hostage-taking to evade arrest or obstruct justice.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1


 





FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPORT AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to Support Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of May
1, 2015, by and among CiG Wireless Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), Fir Tree Capital Opportunity
(LN) Master Fund, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Holder LP”), and Fir Tree REF III Tower LLC, an exempted
limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands (“Holder LLC”, and together with Holder LP, the “Series
A Holders”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and the Series A Holders are parties to that certain Support Agreement, dated as of March 20, 2015, (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and the Series A Holders desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		1.	Section 1.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following is inserted in
lieu thereof:



 


Delivery of Written Consent.


 


(a)Within twenty-four (24)
hours after the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement, the Series A Holders shall deliver (by PDF, facsimile or similar
electronic transmission) to the Company, with a copy to Parent and Merger Sub, the executed Written Consent. The parties acknowledge
that the Series A Holders shall not be deemed in violation of this Section 1.1 in the event that the Written Consent becomes void
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.


 


(b)The Series A Holders shall promptly
deliver their written consent approving and adopting the Second Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of the date
hereof, among the Company, Parent and Merger Sub.


 


		2.	Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in
the Agreement.



 


		3.	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts.



 


		4.	Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



 


[Signature Pages Follow]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


In
Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Support
Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


 


	 	 	 	 
	 	Company
	 	 
	 	CIG WIRELESS CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	
        /s/
Paul McGinn 

	 	Name:	 	Paul McGinn
	 	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer


 


	 	 	 	 
	 	Series A Holders:
	 	 
	 	
        FIR TREE CAPITAL OPPORTUNITY (LN) MASTER FUND, L.P.

         

        By: Fir Tree Inc., its Manager

         

	 	By:	 	
        /s/
Brian Meyer 

	 	Name:	 	Brian Meyer
	 	Title:	 	General Counsel
	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
        FIR TREE REF III TOWER LLC

         

        By: Fir Tree Inc., its Manager

         

	 	By:	 	
        /s/
Brian Meyer 

	 	Name:	 	Brian Meyer
	 	Title:	 	General Counsel





 



    	[Signature Page to Amendment to Support Agreement]
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43521

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEDEDIAH RAE HAMMOND,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 579

Filed: June 22, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Jedediah Rae Hammond pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-

8004, 18-8005(5). The district court sentenced Hammond to a unified term of seven years, with 

a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court suspended Hammond’s 

sentence and placed him on probation. Hammond thereafter admitted to violating the terms of 

his probation several times. Ultimately, the district court revoked probation, order execution of 

Hammond’s original sentence, but retained jurisdiction. After Hammond’s participation in the 

rider program, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Hammond filed an I.C.R 35 motion for 

reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Hammond appeals.
2

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Hammond’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Hammond’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
# C_2012284EN.01001301.xml

| 20.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/13

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2012/C 284/05

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 19 April 2012 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 71056 |
| Decision Number | : | 137/12/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Name of the beneficiary | : | Södra Cell Tofte AS |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid under the Energy Fund Scheme, subject to a detailed assessment under the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection |
| Scheme | : | The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with Decision No 125/06/COL on 3 May 2006 |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Aid amount | : | NOK 100 million |
| Economic sectors | : | Energy production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Enova SF |
| Professor Borchsgt. 2 |
| 7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

19 April 2012

Case number

:

71056

Decision Number

:

137/12/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Name of the beneficiary

:

Södra Cell Tofte AS

Type of measure

:

Individual aid under the Energy Fund Scheme, subject to a detailed assessment under the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection

Scheme

:

The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with Decision No 125/06/COL on 3 May 2006

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

:

Grant

Aid amount

:

NOK 100 million

Economic sectors

:

Energy production

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Enova SF

Professor Borchsgt. 2

7030 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
#### § 269b.610 Procedures.

Where remedial action is ordered or provided for in a settlement agreement, a report to the panel that such action has been taken and that compliance with the decision and orders of the panel has been effected shall be submitted within the period of time specified in the panel's decision. The panel is empowered to utilize whatever administrative procedures it deems necessary to ascertain compliance.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2653 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2653

    To provide for priority consideration for grade crossing safety 
         improvements where there have been serious collisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2007

  Mr. Graves introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for priority consideration for grade crossing safety 
         improvements where there have been serious collisions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PRIORITY GRADE CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

    Section 130 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Priority Grade Crossing Safety Improvements.--The Secretary 
shall give priority consideration under this section to provide 
emergency grade crossing safety improvements on an expedited basis in 
the event of a railroad grade crossing collision with multiple serious 
bodily injuries or multiple fatalities. Assistance provided pursuant to 
this subsection shall not exceed $250,000 per grade crossing.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[House Report 106-626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-626

======================================================================

 
   PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4475, TRANSPORTATION AND 
 RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 
                                30, 2001

                                _______
                                

May 18, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 505]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 505, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4475, 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for the 
Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2001, under an open rule. The 
rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. The rule provides that the amendments printed in 
this report shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives 
clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or legislative 
provisions in an appropriations bill) against provisions in the 
bill, as amended, except as otherwise specified in the rule.
    Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given 
priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise 
consistent with House rules. The Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole may postpone votes during consideration of the bill, 
and reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question 
if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule 
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.

                  summary of self-executed amendments

    The amendments correct the amount of funds to be derived 
from the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, strike an incorrectly 
titled paragraph, and insert the short title of the bill.

                    text of self-executed amendments

    Page 11, line 4, strike ``$4,403,869,000'' and insert 
``$4,414,869,000''.
    Page 19, line 6, strike ``(highway trust fund)''.
    Page 54, after line 2, insert the following:
    This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.

                                  

```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 23 (Thursday, February 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 9, 2009, 1 p.m. to 
February 9, 2009, 3 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register 
on January 23, 2009, 74 FR 4208-4210.
    The meeting will be held February 23, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 
The meeting location remains the same.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-2386 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 252.145 Liquidity risk-management requirements for foreign banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more and combined U.S. assets of less than $100 billion. ( a ) A foreign banking organization subject to this subpart with average total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more must report to the Board on an annual basis the results of an internal liquidity stress test for either the consolidated operations of the foreign banking organization or the combined U.S. operations of the foreign banking organization. Such liquidity stress test must be conducted consistent with the Basel Committee principles for liquidity risk management and must incorporate 30-day, 90-day, and one-year stress-test horizons. The “Basel Committee principles for liquidity risk management” means the document titled “Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision” (September 2008) as published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, as supplemented and revised from time to time.
( b ) A foreign banking organization that does not comply with paragraph (a) of this section must limit the net aggregate amount owed by the foreign banking organization's non-U.S. offices and its non-U.S. affiliates to the combined U.S. operations to 25 percent or less of the third party liabilities of its combined U.S. operations, on a daily basis.
[Reg. YY, 79 FR 17324, Mar. 27, 2014, as amended at 84 FR 59111, Nov. 1, 2019]