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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's 2nd Quarter Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         712,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,724,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                    98,834
<INVENTORY>                                    348,679
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,087,412
<PP&E>                                      25,307,849
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,642,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,940,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,859,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,210,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,940,878
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,367,582
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,459,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             964,446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,163,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                   424,677
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            739,227
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   645,303<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
<FN>
<F1>Other expenses are netted with other income in the period and the result
was income of $220,232.  The Edgarlink program does not allow an income
number to be entered in this field.
<F2>The difference between income from continuing and net income relates
to minority interests in preferred stock dividends of consolidated
subsidiaries.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
PLEAS IN BAR.

[Summit Circuit Court,

October Term, 1894.]

Baldwin, Caldwell and Hale, JJ.

#### †Chris. Koch v. State of Ohio.

Conviction Under Ordinance not a Bar to State Prosecution.

A trial, conviction and sentence under an ordinance of a city, by the mayor of the city, is not a good plea in bar to an information filed under the state statute, involving the same transaction.

†

This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. See opinion, 53 O. S., 433.

*210Hare, J.

In this case, it is sought to reverse a judgment of the probate court of this county, which judgment was affirmed bj1- the court of common pleas. Koch was tried on information charging him with an offense under the statutes of the state, in keeping open his saloon on Sunday. He interposed as a defense to that information that he had been tried, convicted and sentenced under an ordinance of the city, before the mayor of the city for the identical transaction which was the foundation of the information in the probate court; and the law question submitted to us is, whether a trial, conviction and sentence under an ordinance of the city, by the mayor of the city, is a good plea in bar to an information filed under the state statute, involving the same transaction.

The question is of such importance, that we have given it a thorough examination; and while I will not discuss it upon principle, the decided weight of authority sustains this judgment. Indeed, the more recent authorities are substantially in accord in sustaining the proposition and are of such weight, and so nearly uniform, that we do not feel at liberty to disregard them.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1




---

LENOX GROUP INC.

The
corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a statement of the powers, designations, preferences
and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications,
limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights.



The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:TEN COM
        
        as tenants in common
        UNIF GIFT MIN ACT
        
        Custodian(Cust)
        
        (Minor)TEN ENT
        
        as tenants by entireties
        
        
        under Uniform Transfers to Minors ActJT TEN
        
        as joint tenants with right of survivorshipand not as tenants in common
        
        (State)Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in above list.For value received ____________ hereby sell, assign, and transfer untoPLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHERIDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _____________________________ Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


Dated


NOTICE:
        THE SIGNATURE  TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THECERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.


This certificate also evidences and entitles the holder hereof to certain
Rights as set forth in the Rights Agreement between Lenox Group Inc. and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Rights Agent,
dated as of January 14, 2008, as the same may be supplemented or amended from time to time (the Rights
Agreement), the terms of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference and a copy of which is on file at the
principal executive offices of Lenox Group Inc. Under certain circumstances, as set forth in the Rights Agreement, such Rights
will be evidenced by separate certificates and will no longer be evidenced by this certificate. Lenox Group Inc. will mail to the
holder of this certificate a copy of the Rights Agreement without charge after receipt of a written request therefor. Under
certain circumstances, as set forth in the Rights Agreement, Rights acquired or beneficially owned by any Person who becomes an
Acquiring Person or any Affiliate or Associate of an Acquiring Person (as such terms are defined in the Rights Agreement) and
their transferees will become null and void and will no longer be transferable.

---
From: Mills, Alberta E.
To: Heggs, Angela Subject: FW: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:19:55 AM
Attachments: March 3 2015 letter to CPSC.pdf



### Hi Angie,

Please see the email trail below regarding the attached comments for the ROV rulemaking. Thank you!

Alberta

From: Tsacoumis, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 5:13 PM To: Mills, Alberta E. Cc: Pollitzer, Patricia; Little, Barbara; Boyle, Mary Subject: FW: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing



### Another item for the rulemaking record (ROV rule). Thanks much.

From: Kaye, Elliot Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:54 PM To: Tsacoumis, Stephanie Cc: Fong-Swamidoss, Jana Subject: Fw: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing



### Also for the rulemaking record, please. Thanks.

From : Rachel Weintraub [ mailto:rweintraub@consumerfed.org ] Sent : Tuesday, March 03, 2015 04:37 PM To : Kaye, Elliot Cc : Adler, Robert; Buerkle, Ann Marie; Mohorovic, Joseph; Robinson, Marietta; Adkins, Patricia; Paul, Caroleene; Erik Pritchard < epritchard@rohva.org > Subject : Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing



### Dear Chairman Kaye,

Please see my attached letter of clarification regarding my responses to questions asked during the CPSC’s ROV hearing on January 7, 2015.

Thank you for your consideration,
-Rachel Weintraub

Rachel Weintraub | Legislative Director and General Counsel Consumer Federation of America 1620 Eye Street, NW Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20006 T 202/939-1012 | | M 202/904-4953 consumerfed.org | rweintraub@consumerfed.org
II 

Calendar No. 717

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3428

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2004

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT

To designate a portion of the United States courthouse located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, 

as the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s 

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3428 PCS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The building and structure de3 scribed in subsection (b) shall be known and designated 

4 as the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s 

5 Building’’. 

6 (b) DESCRIPTION.—The building and structure to be 

7 designated under subsection (a) is that portion of the 

8 United States courthouse located at 2100 Jamieson Ave9 nue, in Alexandria, Virginia (known as the Albert V. 

10 Bryan United States Courthouse), that is attached to the 

11 courthouse main tower structure, described as A-Wing in 

12 the architectural plans, and currently occupied by the Of13 fice of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District 

14 of Virginia, Alexandria Division. 

15 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

16 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

17 paper, or other record of the United States to the building 

18 and structure described in section 1(b) shall be deemed 

19 to be a reference to the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States 

20 Attorney’s Building’’. 

21 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

22 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

23 as may be necessary for appropriate identifying designa24 tions to be affixed to the building and structure described 

25 in section 1(b) and for an appropriate plaque reflecting 

26 the designation and honoring Justin W. Williams and his 
3

HR 3428 PCS 

1 service to the Nation to be affixed to or displayed in such 

2 building and structure.

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 
Calendar No. 717

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3428

AN ACT

To designate a portion of the United States courtUnited States Attorney’s Building’’. andria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Justin W. Williams house located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in AlexSEPTEMBER 27, 2004

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
#### Illinois Surety Company et al. *v.*Indianapolis Mortar and Fuel Company.

[No. 22,219.

Filed March 4, 1913.]

From Marion Circuit Court (19,681) ; *Charles Remster,*Judge.

Action by the Indianapolis Mortar and Fuel Company against the Illinois Surety Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

*Affirmed.*

*Charles B. Clarke, Walter C. Clarke*and *Roy E. Reed,*for appellants.

*Groninger & Groninger*and *Ryan & Ruckelshaus,*for appellee.

Cox, J.

Appellee sued appellants. Manley and O’Donnell, as principals and the Illinois Surety Company, as surety, on two bonds given to secure the performance of two contracts taken by Manley and O’Donnell for the construction of sewers in the city of Indianapolis, for which work appellee had furnished materials to the contractors. From a judgment in favor of appellee for the sum of $6,113.82 this appeal is brought.

The provisions of the bonds and the contracts which they were given to secure are in all material respects the same as those involved in two cases heretofore decided by this court. *(Aetna Indemnity Co.*v. *Indianapolis, etc., Fuel Co.*[1912], 178 Ind. 70, 98 N. E. 706, and *American Fidelity Co.*v. *Indianapolis, etc., Fuel Co.*[1912], 178 Ind. 133, 98 N. E. 709.) The same contentions against liability are pressed by counsel for appellants in this case that were presented and decided adversely to the contentions in those cases and upon the declarations of law there announced the judgment in this case is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gelu Voicu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to
the Annual Report of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended May 2, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc.

                                 By:  /s/ Gelu Voicu
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                 Name: Gelu Voicu
                                 Title:President and Chief Executive Officer

I, Thomas E. Gay III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended May 2, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Catalyst
Semiconductor, Inc.

                                 By: /s/ Thomas E. Gay III
                                     ---------------------------------
                                 Name: Thomas E. Gay III
                                 Title:Vice President of Finance
                                       and Administration and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### KATY THORP *v.*MILES THORP.

Divorce — gross neglect — separation by agreement — division of property — adultery.

Gross neglect is not established by proof of personal violence, reconciliation, agreement to separate, a division of furniture, or the husband’s adulterous intercourse with others.

Divorce for gross neglect. These parties quarreled for some time; he abused her, and they were reconciled, and lived together. They then separated: he said he was sorry she would not live with him, but he could get as good as she to live with him. They divided their furniture and each took part. One woman swore he was ‘a mean man, drunken, idle, do-no-good-fellow, and never did.’ Snyder testified to their quarreling, and that one time he took down with him a schoolmistress, but the landlord would not let them live in the house, and they went to a schoolhouse, where Thorp went to bed with her. In the morning the witness went into the school house, found her uncovered, and took the pains to cover her up.

Court.

Let the bill be dismissed, there is no cause for divorce for gross neglect, whatever else there may be.
#### Willie Lee PERRY *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-56

497 S.W. 2d 10

Opinion delivered July 16, 1973

*Sam L. Anderson,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Charles A. Banks,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

Willie Lee Perry was charged with murder in the second degree, was found guilty of that offense, and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. We find no merit in his two points for reversal.

First, Perry’s counsel, in seeking to prove self-defense by showing that the decedent was the aggressor, attempted to cross-examine police officers about the decedent’s police record. That evidence was properly excluded, because it would at best have shown specific acts rather than general reputation. *Sanders*v. *State,*245 Ark. 321, 432 S.W. 2d 467 (1968). Moreover, there was no proffer of proof, even though one of the officers had the record with him; so we have no way of knowing whether the record contained relevant information helpful to the accused. Consequently, if the record should prove to be inadmissible, as apparently it was, a retrial would be found to have been wholly unnecessary.

Secondly, it is contended that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The burden was upon *940counsel to request such an instruction. *Johnson*v. *State,*214 Ark. 902, 218 S.W. 2d 687 (1949). No such request was made, doubtless for the reason that the defense, as a matter of strategy, elected to confine the jury to the choice between a finding of second degree murder and an acquittal. That gamble having failed, the defendant is not entitled to an opportunity to change his tactics at a second trial.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11.1
                  CALIFORNIA PRO SPORTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE



                                                  Year ended December 31,
                                                  -----------------------
                                                   1998            1997  
                                                  ------          ------
Net loss ..................................... $ (3,497,587)   $ (4,809,215)

Amortization of discount on preferred stock ..   (1,120,000)
                                               ------------    ------------

Net loss applicable to common shareholders ... $ (4,617,587)   $ (4,809,215)
                                               ============    ============

Weighted average number
of common shares outstanding                      9,549,353       5,544,833

Common equivalent shares
representing shares
issuable upon exercise of
outstanding options and warrants                        -*-             -*-
                                               ------------    ------------
                                                  9,549,353       5,544,833
                                               ============    ============

Basic and diluted loss pershare:
      Before extraordinary item .............. $      (0.48)   $      (0.94)
      Extraordinary item .....................                         0.07
                                               ------------    ------------

Basic and diluted loss per common share ...... $      (0.48)   $      (0.87)
                                               ============    ============


* No impact to weighted  average number of shares as the inclusion of additional
shares assuming the exercise of outstanding options and warrants would have been
antidilutive.

    Fully  diluted  and  supplementary  net  income  (loss)  per  share  are not
presented as the amounts are not  dilutively  or  incrementally  different  from
primary net income (loss) per share amounts.
Docket Number FAA-2013-0702
§ 366.16 When may I seek a reconsideration or review of an FDIC determination? ( a ) You may seek reconsideration or review of our initial determination by sending a written request to the individual who issued you the initial decision.
( b ) You must provide new information or explain a change in circumstances for our reconsideration of an initial decision. The individual who issued you the initial decision may either make a new determination or refer your request to a higher authority for review.
( c ) You must provide an explanation of how you perceive that we misapplied this part that sets forth the legal or factual errors for our review of an initial decision.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alliance Financial Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack H. Webb, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
November 10, 2008



/s/ Jack H. WebbName:

Jack H. WebbTitle:

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.01

Subsidiaries of Levitz Furniture Incorporated:

                                                   JURISDICTION OF
NAME                                                INCORPORATION
----                                                -------------

Levitz Furniture Corporation                           Florida

Subsidiaries of Levitz Furniture Corporation:

                                                   JURISDICTION OF
NAME                                                INCORPORATION
----                                                -------------

Levitz Furniture Company
of the Midwest, Inc.                                   Colorado

Levitz Furniture Company
of the Pacific, Inc.                                  California

Levitz Furniture Company
of Washington, Inc.                                   Washington

John M. Smyth Company                                  Illinois

Levitz Furniture Realty Corporation                    Florida

Levitz Furniture Reinsurance Ltd.              Turks and Caicos Islands


                                       1