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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1996 Form 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001003638
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,042
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                   38
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39
<PP&E>                                         29,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,097
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,528
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,815
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (580)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (580)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
§ 102-73.45 When may Federal agencies consider leases of privately owned land and buildings to satisfy their space needs? Federal agencies may consider leases of privately owned land and buildings only when needs cannot be met satisfactorily in Government-controlled space and one or more of the following conditions exist: ( a ) Leasing is more advantageous to the Government than constructing a new building, or more advantageous than altering an existing Federal building.
( b ) New construction or alteration is unwarranted because demand for space in the community is insufficient, or is indefinite in scope or duration.
( c ) Federal agencies cannot provide for the completion of a new building within a reasonable time.
Exhibit 10.10

ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

7001 OAKPORT STREET

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94621

May 24, 2006

KKR-ZT L.L.C.



| | Re: | Waiver Letter
| | --- | -------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to that certain Letter Agreement dated November 13, 2003 (the Letter Agreement) between Zhone Technologies, Inc.
(Zhone) and KKR-ZT L.L.C. (KKR) regarding the nomination of certain directors to the Board of Directors of Zhone (the Board).

This letter confirms our understanding that, in light of Adam Clammers resignation from the Board and the current composition of the Board, KKR has
agreed to waive its right under the Letter Agreement to require Zhone to nominate as directors two nominees designated by KKR. KKR retains its right to require Zhone to nominate as a director one nominee designated by KKR, who shall be appointed to
the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee as required by the Letter Agreement. In addition, KKR retains all other rights provided in the Letter Agreement. KKR may revoke this waiver at any time by providing written notice to such effect to
Zhone.

Except as hereby modified, the Letter Agreement will continue in full force and effect.



Very truly yours,ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.By:

/s/ Kirk MisakaName:

Kirk MisakaTitle:

CFO


Acknowledged and Agreed:



|              |  |                         
|------------- |  | ------------------------
|KKR-ZT L.L.C.
|              | 
|By:           |  | /s/ James H. Greene, Jr.
|Name:         |  | James H. Greene, Jr.    
|Title:        |  | President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7460

WILLIAM JACKSON NEAL, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DALLAS WEAVER; WAYNE MOORE, Superintendent of Caswell Correctional Center; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-52-5-BR) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998 Before WIDENER and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jackson Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Neal v. Weaver , No. CA-96-52-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisionalprocess. The motions for remand and for a certificate of appealability are denied.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

PainCare, Inc.

PainCare Management Services, Inc.

Caperian, Inc.

PainCare Surgery Centers, Inc.

PainCare Surgery
Centers I, Inc.

PainCare Surgery Centers II, Inc.

PainCare Surgery Centers III, Inc.

Advanced Orthopaedics of South Florida II, Inc.

Rothbart Pain Management Clinic

Pain and Rehabilitation Network, Inc.

Medical
Rehabilitation Specialists II, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company V, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company VI, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company VIII, Inc. d/b/a Bone and Joint Surgical Clinic

Health Care Center of Tampa, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company IX, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company X, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XI, Inc.

Georgia Surgical Centers, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XII, Inc.

PainCare
Acquisition Company XIII, Inc.

Benjamin Zolper, M.D., Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XV, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XVII, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XVIII, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XIX, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XX, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXI, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXII, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXIII, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXIV, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXV, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXVI, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXVII, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXVIII, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXIX, Inc.

PainCare Acquisition Company XXX, Inc.

PainCare Reorganization Corp I Inc.

PainCare Reorganization Corp II Inc.



---

|PainCare | Reorganization Corp III Inc.
|-------- | ----------------------------

|PainCare | Reorganization Corp IV Inc.
|-------- | ---------------------------

|PainCare | Reorganization Corp V Inc.
|-------- | --------------------------

|PainCare | Reorganization Corp VI Inc.
|-------- | ---------------------------

PainCare Neuromonitoring I, Inc.

PainCare Intraoperative Services, Inc.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants.

 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Kenneth C. Griffin and Defendants the Internal Revenue Service and the United 

States Department of the Treasury (collectively, the “Parties”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate and agree to dismiss this case, with prejudice.

Dated: June 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

For Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

William A. Burck (pro hac vice)

Derek L. Shaffer (pro hac vice)

Alexander J. Merton (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 538-8334

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com

ajmerton@quinnemanuel.com

John F. Bash (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2024 Page 1 of 3
2

300 West 6th St, Suite 2010

Austin, TX 78701

(737) 667-6100

johnbash@quinnemanuel.com

Jason D. Sternberg (Florida Bar No. 72887)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

2601 South Bayshore Dr, Suite 1550

Miami, FL 33133

(305) 402-4880

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Christopher D. Kercher (pro hac vice)

Peter H. Fountain (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,

New York, New York 10010

(212) 849-7000 

christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com

peterfountain@quinnemanuel.com

For Defendants

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

By: /s/ Mary Elizabeth Smith

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Maryland Bar No. 0712110235

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096

BEATRIZ T. SAIZ 

New Jersey Bar No. 024761995

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14198

Washington, D.C. 20044

214-880-9779 (v) | 214-880-9741 (f)

Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@usdoj.gov

Beatriz.T.Saiz@usdoj.gov

Of Counsel:

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

United States Attorney

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2024 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 24th day of June, 2024, I caused a copy of the foregoing 

document to be filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which 

will send notification to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

Jason D. Sternberg

Fla. Bar No. 72887

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2024 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALRENCO, INC. FOR THE YEAR PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,259,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 42,277,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,318,013
<PP&E>                                       8,688,304
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,766,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,872,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,225,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    50,949,762
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,735,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,872,901
<SALES>                                      1,688,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           103,548,606
<CGS>                                        1,446,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,910,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            69,673,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,245,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,719,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,132,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,586,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,586,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59


</TABLE>
#### § 102-38.370 What does a holding agency do with property which cannot be sold by its SC?

All reasonable efforts must be afforded the SC to sell the property. If the property remains unsold after the time frame agreed to between the SC and the holding agency, the holding agency may dispose of the property by sale or as otherwise provided in § 102-38.70. The lack of public interest in buying the property is evidence that the sales proceeds would be minimal. Agencies selling property under authority of this subpart are still required to report sales metrics in accordance with eFAS ESC-approved format and content.
§ 102-40.110 What must we include in the sales terms and conditions when selling personal property with special handling requirements? In addition to the recommended sales terms and conditions contained in part 102-38 of this subchapter, when selling personal property with special handling requirements you must include the following in the sales terms and conditions: ( a ) A full description of the actual or potential hazard(s) associated with handling, storage, or use of the item, as well as any use requirements, restrictions, or limitations;
( b ) An SDS, MSDS, or HMIS when available;
( c ) A certification, executed by a duly authorized agency official, that the item is appropriately labeled and packaged in accordance with applicable regulatory and statutory requirements;
( d ) Any additional requirements the purchaser must comply with prior to removal, *e.g.,* demilitarization on-site;
( e ) The necessary steps the purchaser must take in the handling and transportation of the property when the property is sold; and
( f ) A statement that it is the purchaser's responsibility to comply with all applicable Federal, state, local, and export laws and regulations to ensure the proper registration, licensing, possession, transportation, and subsequent use, resale or disposal of the property. You must use the following certification (or an equivalent certification) when offering for sale an item requiring special handling. Failure to sign the certification may result in the bid being rejected as nonresponsive:
The undersigned bidder hereby certifies that if awarded a contract under this invitation for bids, the bidder will comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations with respect to the care, handling, storage, shipment, resale, export, or other use of the material hereby purchased. The bidder will hold the United States harmless from and indemnify the United States against any or all debts, liabilities, judgments, costs, demands, suits, actions, or other claims of any nature arising from or incident to the handling, use, storage, shipment, resale, export, or other disposition of the items purchased. Name of bidder (print or type) Signature of bidder
Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Annual Report of OSK CAPITAL II CORP.(the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Metrakos,
Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: February 27, 2006


                 /s/ George Metrakos
                 George Metrakos
                 Chief Accounting Officer
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










Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Roger S. Marcus, Chief Executive Officer, and Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer, of American Biltrite Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of the Company as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










Date:  August 13, 2009


/s/ Roger S. Marcus


Roger S. Marcus


Chief Executive Officer








/s/ Howard N. Feist III


Howard N. Feist III


Chief Financial Officer
What is [INSERT STATE SERVICE COMMISSION/ GRANTEE NAME]?

[Insert state service commission/grantee details]

[State Service Commission selects the standard language for the program(s) in their geographic area and supplements with information about their own projects.]

Learn more and get started:

[State Service Commission/grantee website and/or contact information]

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png
#### § 102-73.50 Are Federal agencies that possess independent statutory authority to acquire leased space subject to requirements of this part?

No, Federal agencies possessing independent statutory authority to acquire leased space are not subject to GSA authority and, therefore, may not be subject to the requirements of this part. However, lease prospectus approval requirements of 40 U.S.C. Section 3307 may still apply appropriations to lease of space for public purposes under an agency's independent leasing authority.
Ossipee District Court

No. 78-260

#### William Leighton and Susan Leighton v. Daniel Davis and James H. Hall, Jr.

February 28, 1979

*Raymond A. Burgess,*of Manchester, by brief and orally, for the plaintiffs.

*William P. Shea,*of Sanbornville *(Edward J. Mertens,*II orally), for the defendants.

*116Memorandum Opinion

This is an appeal from the Ossipee District Court’s verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $786.00. The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts. The defendants’ exceptions were transferred by *Fauver,*J.

Plaintiffs initiated an action in Maine in 1976, and after defendants failed to answer a default was entered. A special appearance was filed nine days after the default by New Hampshire counsel together with a letter indicating that Maine counsel would also appear. A month later, Maine defense counsel entered a general appearance, which was never withdrawn. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in Maine. After the defendants failed to appear at a hearing on that motion and plaintiffs’ motion for determination of damages, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then filed suit in New Hampshire to collect the judgment obtained in Maine. The Ossipee District Court held that the Maine judgment was entitled to full faith and credit.

Because counsel for the defendants entered a general appearance, defendants submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Maine courts. They are estopped from attempting to relitigate the jurisdictional issues at this time. Defendants’ remedy was to seek to change their general appearance to a special appearance on the ground of mistake and to appeal the decision on jurisdiction in the Maine court system. Had defendants’ counsel done nothing in Maine, defendants may have been in a better posture, but we must deal with the case on the facts before us. *See Baillargeon v. Brodhead Ford Sales, Inc.,*118 N.H. 790, 394 A.2d 325 (1978).

The judgment is entitled to full faith and credit because defendants voluntarily appeared before the Maine Court. *See Old Wayne Life Ass’n v. McDonough,*204 U.S. 8 (1906).

*Exceptions overruled.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40624 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-20-1

- - - - - - - - - - May 13, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gerardo Garza entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 2. He appeals his conviction, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana found in his vehicle at the time of his arrest. He argues that the Border Patrol did not have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when they stopped hisNo. 97-40624 -2- vehicle and, hence, that their subsequent search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The totality of the circumstances shows that, prior to stopping Garza’s vehicle, the Border Patrol was aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warranted suspicion that Garza’s truck was involved in illegal activities. See United States v. BrignoniPonce , 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Inocencio , 40 F.3d 716, 722 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.