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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,101,633
<SECURITIES>                                   198,992
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,300,625
<PP&E>                                      12,386,643
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,960,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,687,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,569,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,687,268
<SALES>                                      1,554,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,163,631
<CGS>                                          195,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  195,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               664,960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,303,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,303,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,303,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    82.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    82.50
        

</TABLE>
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: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending May 26, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Third Quarter of 2012 (July 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

* 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
§ 78.17-5 Valves and closing appliances. ( a ) It shall be the duty of the master to see that all valves, including cross connecting valves where fitted, and other appliances such as port lights, closing mechanism of scuppers, ash chutes, and rubbish chutes, the closing of which is necessary to make a compartment watertight, are operated at least once in every week that the vessel is navigated to be assured that they are in proper operating condition. Any remote controls or indicating mechanisms shall be inspected at this time to test their efficiency. Where such valves are accessible, they shall be inspected at this time, otherwise, they shall be inspected at the first opportunity when they are accessible. On vessels in which the voyage exceeds one week in duration, these appliances shall be operated before the vessel leaves port.
( b ) The date of the test and the condition of the equipment shall be noted in the official logbook.
§ 1.2 Organization of the Department. ( a ) The Secretary of Transportation is the head of the Department.
( b ) The Department comprises the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the following Operating Administrations, each headed by an Administrator who reports directly to the Secretary: ( 1 ) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
( 2 ) The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
( 3 ) The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
( 4 ) The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
( 5 ) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
( 6 ) The Maritime Administration (MARAD).
( 7 ) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
( 8 ) The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
( 9 ) The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).
( 10 ) The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC).
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: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending September 19, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
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: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending June 19, 2010

|Filer                             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                              
|--------------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST NORTON CORPORATION          | CIC            | Notification by Scott L. Smiley, Avondale, Colorado, to acquire control of First Norton Corporation, parent of First Security Bank & Trust Company, both of Norton, Kansas.              | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/08/2010 
|Newspaper:                        | Not available 
|Federal Register:                 | 07/08/2010    
|MANHATTAN BANKING CORPORATION     | * 3A3          | Manhattan Banking Corporation, Manhattan, Kansas, to acquire 48.02 percent, for a total of 53.8646 percent, of the voting shares of Sonoran Bank, N.A., Phoenix, Arizona.                | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/16/2010 
|Newspaper:                        | Not available 
|Federal Register:                 | 07/16/2010    
|SANDHILLS FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC | 4c8            | Sandhills Financial Services, LLC, Fremont, Nebraska, to continue to engage in general insurance activities through the retention of Sandhills Insurance Agency, LLC, Bassett, Nebraska. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:07/08/2010
|Newspaper:                        | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                 | 07/08/2010    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location   | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------ | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|HOME ST BK, ERIE, KANSAS | 797159 | 03/22/2010 | 06/09/2010     | S         | Small Bank 

## 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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11156

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANIBAL ALEXANDER ORTIZ-ESCOBAR,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-226-P

- - - - - - - - - -

July 24, 1996

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Anibal Alexander Ortiz-Escobar

(Ortiz) has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we have independently reviewed counsel's

brief, the points raised by Ortiz in response to that brief, and

the record, and found no nonfrivolous issue. We do not reach

Ortiz's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. United States

v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 

484 U.S. 1075 (1988). Accordingly, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.1 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL LEASE
OPTION EXERCISE This Exercise of Option is made with respect to that certain Standard Industrial Lease dated
February 18, 1991 (the Lease) between 5700 West 96th Street, a California general
partnership (Lessor), and Diagnostic Products Corporation, a California corporation (Lessee),
as amended pursuant to that certain Second Addendum to Standard Industrial Lease between Lessor and
Lessee dated April 1, 2002 (the Addendum). WHEREAS,
pursuant to the Addendum, Lessee has an option to extend the Lease
through December 31, 2006 by providing written notice to the Lessor no later than November 1, 2004 (the Option);
and WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge a mistake in the Addendum with respect to the Option term
provided in paragraph 20 of the Addendum and the date by which notice must be given to exercise the
Option in paragraph 22 of the Addendum; and WHEREAS, Lessor orally extended the period of time Lessee had the right to exercise the
Option; and WHEREAS, Lessee desires to exercise the Option; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 20 of the Addendum is hereby reformed and clarified to read in full as follows: Lessee extends the lease for a period of two years beginning on January 1, 2003
and ending on December 31, 2004. 2. Paragraph 22 of the Addendum is hereby reformed and clarified to read in full as follows: Lessee shall have an option to extend the lease an additional two years beyond
December 31, 2004 at a rent per month of $90,562 by providing notice to the
Partnership not later than November 1, 2004.




---



##### 



3. Lessee hereby exercises the Option to extend the Lease for the period January 1, 2005
through December 31, 2006 at a rent per month of $90,562, effective as of January 1, 2005, and
Lessor consents to such exercise. Dated as of January 1, 2005
    
    DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS CORPORATIONBy
    
    /S/ James L. BrillJames L. Brill, Vice President, Finance5700 WEST 96TH STREET, a general partnershipBy
    
    /S/ Michael ZieringMichael Ziering, Partner
 2
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, April 3, 1995 (54), Para 54.16 H.R. 716--Unfinished Business]
[Page 525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.54.16  h.r. 716--unfinished business

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, pursuant to 
clause 5, rule I, announced the bill (H.R. 716) to amend the Fishermen's 
Protective Act.
  The question being put,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill?
  The vote was taken by electronic device.

It was decided in the

Yeas

384

affirmative

Nays

0
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. XAVIER S. DURAH, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 445 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED . Petitioner's "Motion for Leave to File Sealed Supplemental Appendix to Petition for Allowance of Appeal" is DENIED
.
#### § 1110.8 Adoption of final rules.

If, after consideration of all comments received, final rules are adopted, notice will be published in the Federal Register.
#### Sarah Adeline Lloyd, *Respondent, v.*William T. Lloyd, *Apellant.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 01-209 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GERMANY 

Signed January 16 and February 9, 2001 

 and 

Agreement Amending the Agreement 

Signed at Arlington and Koblenz 

April 22 and May 18, 2010 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 GERMANY 

 

 Defense: Cooperation 

 

 Agreement signed January 16 and February 9, 2001; 

 Entered into force February 9, 2001. 

 And agreement amending the agreement. 

 Signed at Arlington and Koblenz 

 April 22 and May 18, 2010; 

 Entered into force May 18, 2010. 


NOTE: Annex A will not be printed in this publication. For the updated Annex A, please see the 2010 Amendment.










NOTE: Paragraph 4.7.9. should be 4.6.9.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JUAN CARLOS ROSALES, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0019 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR 2014-127064-001 

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Myles A. Braccio 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Charles R. Krull 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ROSALES 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined. 

D O W N I E, Judge: 

¶1 Juan Carlos Rosales appeals his conviction for misconduct 

involving weapons. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 Rosales was placed on probation in 2011 for a felony offense 

and was prohibited from possessing a firearm. In May 2014, his probation 

officer received information that Rosales had a gun at his residence. A 

search of the home revealed a gun in an air duct, and subsequent testing 

established that Rosales’ DNA was on the gun. 

¶3 The State charged Rosales with one count of misconduct 

involving weapons, a class four felony, in violation of Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3102(A)(4). A jury found Rosales guilty of the 

charged offense, and Rosales timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION 

¶4 Rosales makes a single argument on appeal: that the State 

failed to prove his right to possess a firearm had not been restored —

something Rosales claims is an “essential element” of the charged offense. 

As the State correctly notes, however, although it bears the burden of 

proving a defendant was a prohibited possessor, the defendant has the 

burden of proving that his right to possess a firearm has been restored. State 

v. Kelly, 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“Because the restoration 

provision of § 13-3101(A)(6)(b) functions as an exception, it is not an 

element of the offense that the state must prove.”). 

 

1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.” State v. Nihiser, 191 

Ariz. 199, 201 (App. 1997). 
STATE v. ROSALES 

Decision of the Court 

3

¶5 The State proved Rosales’ prohibited possessor status. It 

admitted a certified record of his prior felony conviction, which reflected 

Rosales was sentenced and placed on probation on July 27, 2011. Rosales’ 

probation officer testified he remained on probation as of the date of the 

charged offense and was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Rosales 

presented no evidence that his right to possess a firearm had been restored, 

and he made no such argument at trial. 

CONCLUSION 

¶6 We affirm Rosales’ conviction and sentence.
§ 64.69 Location of the pressure relief device. A pressure relief device must be— ( a ) Accessible for inspection and repair before stowage of the tank; and
( b ) Attached so that escaping gas does not impinge on the tank or framework.
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending March 19, 2011

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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
98-1586.

#### State v. Murphy.

Franklin C.P. No. 97CR052877. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted, pending disposition of this appeal.
###### Editorial Note on Part 98

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

#### § 98.33-9 Stowage.

Each portable tank or IBC authorized under § 98.33-5 of this part must be secured to the vessel by devices of sufficient strength and number to prevent the tank from moving in any direction during transport.

[CGD 84-043, 55 FR 37412, Sept. 11, 1990, as amended by USCG-2011-0088, 78 FR 54788, Sept. 6, 2013]
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

AMERICAN SOFTWARE, INC. 

2011 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN 

WHEREAS, American Software, Inc. (the “Company”) has previously adopted the American Software, Inc. 2011 Equity Compensation Plan
(the “Plan”), reserving the right therein to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has deemed it
advisable and in the best interest of the Company that the Plan be amended to increase the number of shares of Common Stock of the Company which are authorized to be issued under the Plan; 

NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the shareholders of the Company, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. Section 3 of the Plan is removed and replaced with the following: 

“Subject to Section 8, the total number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan is 3,700,000 and the maximum number of Stock
Appreciation Rights that may be granted is 500,000. The Shares may consist, in whole or in part, of unissued Shares or treasury Shares. The issuance of Shares or the payment of cash upon the exercise of an Award or in consideration of the
cancellation or termination of an Award shall reduce the total number of Shares available under the Plan, as applicable. Shares subject to Awards that terminate or lapse without the payment of consideration may be granted again under the Plan.”

 2. This Amendment is subject to approval by the shareholders of the Company. 

3. Except as amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

4. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Plan. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment, effective as of May 15, 2013. 

 

			
	AMERICAN SOFTWARE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ James R. McGuone

		 	James R. McGuone, Secretary