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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (264)
<INVENTORY>                                        250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,009
<PP&E>                                           8,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,149)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,182
<BONDS>                                            287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,170
<SALES>                                          8,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,089
<CGS>                                            4,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,109
<INCOME-TAX>                                        42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,067
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23


</TABLE>
#### Fuller *& a. v.*Leet.

A sale of spirituous liquors, to be forwarded to tbe purchaser in this state by railroad, made by a licensed dealer in Boston, upon an order taken in this state by an agent having no authority to make sales, is a sale in Massachusetts ; and a note given after the enactment of c. 33, Laws of 1876 (G-. L., c. 109, *s.*18), for the price of such liquors legally sold before the passage of that act, is valid.

Assumpsit, to recover the amount of a promissory note dated September 29, 1877, given for liquors bought February 24, 1876. Facts agreed. The order for the liquors was taken at Claremont, N. H., by an agent of the plaintiffs’, transmitted to the plaintiffs at Boston, and accepted by them. The agent was authorized to receive such orders, but was not authorized to make sales. The liquors, marked with the defendant’s name and residence, were sent to the railroad station in Boston by the plaintiffs, the cartage, according to previous custom of the parties, being paid by the plaintiffs and charged in the bill to the defendant, and the plaintiffs had nothing more to do with the liquors after they were deposited at the railroad station in Boston. The plaintiffs were licensed to sell spirituous liquors in Massachusetts.

*Colby,*for the plaintiffs.

*Parker,*for the defendant.

Clark, J.

It has been held, in numerous cases, that when an order is given in this state for the purchase of spirituous liquors to be delivered in another state, the place of delivery is to be regarded as the place of sale; and if such sale is valid by the laws of the place of delivery, an action may be maintained here to recover the price of such liquors, notwithstanding the sale is prohibited by the laws of this state. *Boothby*v. *Plaisted,*51 N. H. 436; *Garland*v. *Lane,*46 N. H. 245; *Banchor*v. Warren, 33 N. H. 183; *Woolsey*v. *Bailey,*27 N. H. 217. It has also been decided that the act of soliciting and receiving such orders in this state, for the purchase of liquors to be delivered in another state, previous to the *164statute of July 18,1876 (Laws of 1876, *c.*33), prohibiting the taking of such orders, did not invalidate the sale, although the seller knew, or had reason to believe, that the purchaser was intending to sell the liquors in violation of the laws of this state. *Corning*v. Abbott, 54 N. H. 469; *Hill*v. Spear, 50 N. H. 253. Upon the authority of these cases, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment. The sale of the liquors under license in Massachusetts was valid, and the consideration of the mote was legal. The act of July 18, 1876, cannot affect orders solicited or sales made prior to its enactment. *Rich*v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304.

*Judgment for the plaintiffs.*

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000828747
<NAME> DRUG SCREENING SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                        $801,979                 $91,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,016                 272,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (60,000)                (50,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                (445,229)
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,057,096                 822,418
<PP&E>                                           1,506                 902,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               (618,578)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,067,187               1,144,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          305,559                 474,233
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        44,460                  42,460
<OTHER-SE>                                     717,168                 627,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,067,187               1,144,040
<SALES>                                      1,907,687               2,172,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,907,687               2,172,310
<CGS>                                          944,027               1,071,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,581,282               1,552,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 659,443                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $41,821              $(451,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01                  (0.15)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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 of MYR Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marco A. Martinez, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

May 10,
2010

/s/ MARCO A. MARTINEZ Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending January 21, 2012

|Filer                       | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                              
|--------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST CAPITAL BANCORP, INC. | CIC                | Mr. Kenneth Ray Lehman of Arlington, Virginia, to acquire 51.3% of the outstanding voting securities of First Capital Bancorp, Inc., Glen Allen, Virginia.                                                         | Newspaper:01/31/2012Federal Register:02/06/2012    
|Newspaper:                  | 01/31/2012        
|Federal Register:           | 02/06/2012        
|PEOPLES BANK OF VIRGINIA    | * Branch           | Peoples Bank of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, to continue to operate a courier service to pick up deposits from business customers.                                                                                | Newspaper:01/25/2012Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                  | 01/25/2012        
|Federal Register:           | Not applicable    
|SANDY SPRING BANCORP, INC.  | * 3A5* 18C* Branch | Sandy Spring Bancorp., Inc., Olney, Maryland, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire CommerceFirst Bank, Annapolis, Maryland | Newspaper:02/16/2012Federal Register:Not available 
|Newspaper:                  | 02/16/2012        
|Federal Register:           | Not available     

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Ed Clark v. The State.

*No. 692.*

*Decided November 4.*

1. Slander — Indictment, Sufficiency of. — An indictment for slander based upon a statement of defendant of and concerning the prosecutrix, to the effect, that she “is pregnant, and will give birth to a child in a few days, is fatally defective and insufficient if it fails to exclude, by further allegation, that she was lawfully or legitimately pregnant.

2. Plea for Defendant — Practice on Appeal.—Where the record on appeal fails to show that a plea in behalf of defendant was entered in the court, below, the prosecution will be dismissed.

Appeal from the County Court of Bowie. Tried below before Hon. John J. King, County Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for slander, wherein the-punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That Ed Clark, late of the county of Bowie, on or about the 19th day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, with force and arms, in the county of Bowie and State of Texas, did then and there orally, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly impute to a female in this State, to-wit, Fannie Mazingo, a want of chastity, to-wit, that the said Ed Clark did then and there, in the presence and hearing of J. B. Aikin,. Jim Aikin, P. St. John, and divers other persons, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly say of and concerning the said Fannie Mazingo (that she ?) is pregnant and will give birth to a child in a few days. Against the-peace and dignity of the State.”

Defendant moved to quash the indictment, because it was insufficient, in law and charged no offense, in that it failed to allege that the prosecutrix was a married or unmarried female. This motion to quash was overruled, and this ruling was again assigned as one of the errors complained of in the motion for new trial.

A statement of the facts is unnecessary in view of the disposition made of the case on this appeal.

*H. D. Hart,*for appellant.

*It. L. Henry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of slander, and prosecutes this appeal.

The indictment is insufficient. The slander consists in stating that Fannie Mazingo is pregnant and will give birth to a child in a few days. It should have excluded the fact that she was lawfully or legitimately *413pregnant. The record contains no plea for defendant. This is fatal to the judgment. Willson’s Crim. Proc., secs. 2577, 2110.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
#### Tasker *v.*Cilley.

The location on the ground of boundaries described in a deed is a question of fact.

Trespass, *quare clausum.*Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement of soil and freehold. Facts 'found by a referee. The deeds through which the plaintiff derived his title described his land as bounded in part by a line running easterly to Strafford, thence southerly to the corner of a lot, thence westerly to the south-west corner of Samuel and Reuben Brown’s land. The defendant claimed that the junction of the plaintiff’s east line with a fence on the north side of the disputed territory was the point referred to in the description as the southerly corner of a lot. The referee found that the land in controversy belonged to the plaintiff.

*A. F. L.*Norris, for the defendant.

Whittemore, Jr., and *Chase $*Streeter, for the plaintiff.

Bingham, J.

The location on the ground of the boundaries described in the deeds was a question of fact for the determination of the referee. *Madden*v. Tucker, 46 Me. 367; *Abbott*v. Abbott, 51 Me. 575; *Tebbetts*v. Estes, 52 Me. 566; *Williston*v. Morse, 10 Met. 17, 27.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

Foster and Allen, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons. ( a ) No person may: ( 1 ) Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.
( 2 ) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
( 3 ) Use, allow to be used, or cause to be used, any airport-issued or airport-approved access medium or identification medium that authorizes the access, presence, or movement of persons or vehicles in secured areas, AOA's, or SIDA's in any other manner than that for which it was issued by the appropriate authority under this subchapter.
( b ) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to conducting inspections or tests to determine compliance with this part or 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII authorized by: ( 1 ) TSA, or
( 2 ) The airport operator, aircraft operator, or foreign air carrier, when acting in accordance with the procedures described in a security program approved by TSA.
EX-10.16.3



 Exhibit 10.16.3 

HVM L.L.C. 

11525 North Community House Road, Suite 100 
 Charlotte, North Carolina 28277 
 October 9, 2013 

WAIVER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 Reference is made herein to that certain employment agreement entered into on July 7, 2011 by and between you and HVM L.L.C (the “Company”), and amended on January 31, 2012 (as
amended, the “Employment Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the respective meaning ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. On August 28, 2013, the Company received a notice (a
“Notice”) from each of ESA Canada Operating Lessee Inc., ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee Inc., and ESA 2007 Operating Lessee Inc. (each, a “Lessee”) of the Lessee’s desire to terminate its respective
management agreement with the Company (each, a “Management Agreement”) effective on or after October 28, 2013. Section 4.D.(iii) of the Employment Agreement provides that you would have Good Reason to terminate your
employment with the Company when notice has been provided to the Company that any Management Agreement to which it is a party is terminated. 

As you may know, ESA Management, LLC (the “ESA”) expects to purchase all of the assets of the Company (the
“Transaction”), pursuant to the contemplated Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between ESA Management, LLC and HVM L.L.C. ESA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Extended Stay America, Inc. Following the Transaction, Extended
Stay America, Inc. contemplates an underwritten initial public offering (the “IPO”) of its shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, which shares shall be, at the effective time of the IPO, paired to, and traded together
with, the Class B shares of common stock par value $0.01 per share, of ESH Hospitality, Inc., a Delaware corporation. 
 In consideration of
your continued employment with HVM through the Transaction and thereafter with ESA pursuant to the terms of your Employment Agreement (as a result of its acquisition as an asset of HVM pursuant to the Transaction), and other good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, you hereby acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Employment Agreement, (i) the receipt by the Company of the Notices and/or (ii) any
subsequent termination of any Management Agreement in connection with such Notices, shall not, in and of itself, constitute Good Reason under the terms of Section 4.D.(iii) of the Employment Agreement. You further agree that, except as provided
herein with respect to (i) the limited waiver set forth in the preceding sentence and (ii) the acquisition of your Employment Agreement by ESA, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

			
	By:	 	/s/ Peter Crage
	Name:	 	Peter Crage
	Date:	 	10/9/13
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6084

WILLIAM BERNARD RANDOLPH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY L. BASS; MAURICE MOIROT, Supervisor, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-R) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Bernard Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Bernard Randolph seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Randolph v. Bass , No. CA99-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 11, 1998). 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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 37699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3353]


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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503. Copies of submission may be 
obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-New.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Title: Invoice/Payment Request, contractor's Release Statement, and 
subcontractor Payment Information-Invoice/Payment Request Attachment.
    Type of Submission: New.
    Purpose: These documents are to be used by construction company 
prime contractors and sub-contractors during the performance of a duly 
executable contract. A duly executable contract arrangement may be in 
the form of a contract, task order, modification, letter contract, and 
written or oral orders. The information provided will be evaluated by 
USAID, cognizant technical officer, agency finance personnel, or an 
authorized contracting officer's representative for contract progress 
payments during proper execution of construction projects. The 
information provided may also be used by a surety, insurance, or 
bonding company for progress payment purposes when the prime 
construction contractor fails in the performance of a contract, task 
order, modification, letter contract, or written and oral orders. The 
information provided in the Invoice/Payment Request form, Contractor's 
Release Statement, and Subcontractor Payment Information-Invoice/
Payment Request Attachment may also be used by a third party 
construction company for progress payments when the prime construction 
contractor fails to execute or fails in the performance of a 
construction contract, task order, modification, letter contract, and 
written or oral orders.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Respondents: 1,000.
    Total annual responses: 1,000.
    Total annual hours requested: 600.

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
Joanne Paskar,
Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative 
Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 07-3353 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M