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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                     137,848,000
<SECURITIES>                               295,875,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,704,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,091,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,285,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           447,189,000
<PP&E>                                      28,099,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,529,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             485,908,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       45,118,000
<BONDS>                                    489,475,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,290,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (61,253,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               485,908,000
<SALES>                                      5,227,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,738,000
<CGS>                                        1,280,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,321,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            66,212,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,558,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (66,926,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (66,581,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (345,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (66,926,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.04)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        10,565,936
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      65,770
<MORTGAGE>                                      10,062
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              12,093,022
<CASH>                                       1,855,048
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         642,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,757,059
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                              12,116,952
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,015
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,156,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,757,059
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            632,844
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (29,636)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  86,751
<BENEFITS>                                       3,505
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     83,848
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            52,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                153,871
<INCOME-TAX>                                    46,564
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,307
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

February 18, 1953

No. 57080.

protests 158500-K, etc. (New York).

#### Paramount Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pear-shaped glass articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Brier Manufacturing Co.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 68, C. A. D. 465), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JOHN WISE

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

WASHINGTON STATE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C05-5810FDB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #42) is GRANTED; and

Plaintiff’s Motion for File Excess Pages for the Objections (Dkt. #64) is GRANTED.

 June 7, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05810-FDB Document 67 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 1
Attachment 2

Attainment Contingency

The Clean Air Act recognizes that extreme ozone nonattainment areas face unmatched challenges and establishes unique provisions in Section 182(e)( 5) which are applicable only in such areas. The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley SIPs rely on these provisions which allow for the approval of an attainment demonstration which anticipates the development of new or improved control technologies in the f uture. Consistent with Section 182(e)(5), ARB has committed to identify by 2020 the additional measures necessary to meet the 2023 attainment emissions level.

In order to satisfy the attainment contingency requirement of the Clean Air Act, the
submi tted S outh Coast and San Joaquin Valley ozone SIPs rely on the increment of
emission reductions from ARB’s mobile source program which accrues as a result of
f leet turnover between 2023 and 2024. These reductions are the result of adopted regulations subm itted as SIP revisions. The additional increment of emission reductions available for attainment contingency is limited, because ARB’s adopted regulations will result in the near complete modernization of the mobile source fleets to the cleanest
available standards by the 2023 attainment year

.
In the South Coast, accounting for existing mobile source emission control programs from 2023 to 2024 would be expected to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and reactive organic gas (R OG) emissions by two tons per day an d one ton per day, respectively. In
the San Joaquin Valley, the projected reductions w ould be two tons per day of NOx and
less than one

- half ton per day of ROG.

R ecognizing the unique provisions that the Act establishes for extreme ozone
nonattainment a reas, and the need to identify additional measures for attainment by 2023, U.S. EPA should approve for attainment contingency purposes ARB’s adopted mobile source control program.
No. 66613.

#### Herbert A. H. Behrens, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/6058, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the cases reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the cases of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 93 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 93

    Designating the week beginning November 23, 1997, and the week 
 beginning on November 22, 1998, as ``National Family Week'', and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 1997

Mr. Grassley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating the week beginning November 23, 1997, and the week 
 beginning on November 22, 1998, as ``National Family Week'', and for 
                            other purposes.

Whereas the family is the basic strength of any free and orderly society;
Whereas it is appropriate to honor the family unit as essential to the continued 
        well-being of the United States; and
Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the importance of 
        family loyalties and ties: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates the week beginning on November 
23, 1997 and the week beginning on November 22, 1998, as ``National 
Family Week''. The Senate requests the President to issue a 
proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each 
week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Melvin Wayne Richardson, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00234

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 195th District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F06

- 62371

- N ). Opinion deli vered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the tri al court

. We note that the appellant, Melvin Wayne Richardson, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 9, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Course Description for the Options

Institute

Last Revised: January 16, 2019
2 P a g e

Course Overview

The Options Institute is the educational unit within Chicago Board Options Exchange that offers 

a 3-day seminar on how to use options for risk management. The seminar explains the role of 

options in modern portfolio management. The curriculum combines lectures, discussions, 

strategy workshops and trading floor experience.

Overview of Curriculum

Day 1: The course introduces options concepts, options pricing theory, and options mechanics.

In addition, the role of the Options Clearing Corporation, options strategies for risk management 

and the role of market markers is covered.

Day 2: During the second day, the program covers futures pricing and hedging strategies. In 

addition, index options and foreign currency options are discussed. Participants are introduced 

to options strategies under simulated market conditions.

Day 3: The final day covers regulatory structure and managing risk using interest rate 

derivatives, as well as, a visit to the trading floor. Participants view the trading floor from inside 

the trading pit and have the opportunity to ask questions of brokers on the trading floor.

Cost

The cost of this program is $1075 per attendee; make payment directly to the Chicago Board 

Options Exchange (CBOE).

Payment Options

• International Students, Board Personnel and State or Agency Learners: Payment is made 

upon arrival by credit card or cashier check payable in U.S. dollars to Chicago Board 

Options Exchange. Advance payment is not required. A receipt will be issued once 

payment is received.

• Federal Reserve Banks are permitted to make payment for their employee(s) no earlier 

than one week prior to the start of the program.

Type of Participant Targeted

The course is designed as a supplementary course for Community Banking Organization (CBO) 

examiners.
3 P a g e

Prerequisites

None

Class Size and Instructors

The class maximum is 30. The CBOE provides the instructors who consist of traders and 

members of the financial and academic communities.

Location

The Options Institute is located within CBOE on LaSalle and Van Buren Streets in Chicago, 

Illinois.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 258 ) ll-K - (I ) -7 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:57AM Sheet 258of 325P. 2 

# '/AUg II-K-(I)-7 1 IFCA M MODE L RESULT S FO

R EIGHT H ROUN D TES T CASES . EEA , Inc . Decembe r 16 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-7 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND HAKOBYA N,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70803

Agency No. A206

- 269

- 422

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 12, 2022 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and DANIELS, ** * District Judge.

Roland Hakobyan, a citizen of Armenia, petition s for review o f a decision

by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable George B. Daniels, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 16 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of relief from removal. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

S ubstantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See

Iman v. Barr , 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Hakobyan was inconsistent in

his statements as to the nature and frequency of the assaults he was subjected to in

Armenia and belatedly disclosed events significant to his claim of persecution

. See

Mukulumbutu v. Barr , 977 F.3d 924

, 926

– 27 (9th Cir. 2020 ) (holding that non

trivial inconsistencies in testimony and omissions of compelling facts are probative

of a petitioner’s credibility). Hakobyan’s “inability to consistently describe the

underlying events that gave rise to his fear was an important factor that could be

relied upon by the IJ in making an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v.

Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally , the agency reasonably

relied on Hakobyan’s inconsistent statements as to whether he had children and

describing his military experience

. These inconsistencies are not so trivial as to

have no bearing on his credibility

. See Li v. Garland

, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir.

2021) (noting that “even minor inconsistencies may have a legitimate impact on a

petitioner’s credibility”)

.

Hakobyan ’s explanati ons for the numerous inconsistencies and omissions do

not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.

2011)

.3

W ithout credible testimony or corroborating evidence

, Hakobyan does not

meet his burden of proof on his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.

See Mukulumbutu , 977 F.3d at 9 27

. 1 Therefore, we do not consider the IJ’s

alternate determination that Hakobyan did not establish that it would be

unreasonable for him to relocate within Armenia.

PETITION DENIED.

1 Hakobyan does not specifically and distinctly raise the denial of his claim for

relief under the Convention Against Torture in his Opening Brief and has

accordingly forfeited that claim. See Castro

- Perez v. Gonzales , 409 F.3d 1069,

1072 (9th Cir. 2005)

.
**Exhibit
      14.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**


**PUBLIC
      ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 333-129136) pertaining to the 2005 Incentive Compensation Plan of Double
      Hull Tankers, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2005, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements of Double Hull Tankers, Inc. and the
      predecessor combined carve-out financial statements of OSG Crude included in
      the
      Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005.










New
      York,
      New York


May
      19,
      2006




/s/
        ERNST
& YOUNG LL  P
| date    | Assets | Liabilities |
|---------|--------|-------------|
| 2000:Q1 | 51.46  | 6.93        |
| 2000:Q2 | 51.38  | 7.08        |
| 2000:Q3 | 52.36  | 7.26        |
| 2000:Q4 | 52.04  | 7.41        |
| 2001:Q1 | 51.99  | 7.45        |
| 2001:Q2 | 53.4   | 7.65        |
| 2001:Q3 | 52.63  | 7.9         |
| 2001:Q4 | 54.28  | 8.03        |
| 2002:Q1 | 55.05  | 8.16        |
| 2002:Q2 | 54.64  | 8.35        |
| 2002:Q3 | 53.78  | 8.56        |
| 2002:Q4 | 54.98  | 8.81        |
| 2003:Q1 | 55.44  | 9           |
| 2003:Q2 | 57.74  | 9.39        |
| 2003:Q3 | 58.89  | 9.65        |
| 2003:Q4 | 61.09  | 9.9         |
| 2004:Q1 | 63.81  | 10.1        |
| 2004:Q2 | 64.88  | 10.42       |
| 2004:Q3 | 66.49  | 10.7        |
| 2004:Q4 | 69.18  | 11.07       |
| 2005:Q1 | 70.22  | 11.28       |
| 2005:Q2 | 72.1   | 11.61       |
| 2005:Q3 | 74.06  | 11.96       |
| 2005:Q4 | 75.94  | 12.26       |
| 2006:Q1 | 78.13  | 12.61       |
| 2006:Q2 | 78.62  | 12.96       |
| 2006:Q3 | 80.18  | 13.29       |
| 2006:Q4 | 81.93  | 13.56       |
| 2007:Q1 | 83.2   | 13.73       |
| 2007:Q2 | 84.05  | 14.04       |
| 2007:Q3 | 85.16  | 14.29       |
| 2007:Q4 | 84.73  | 14.5        |
| 2008:Q1 | 82.9   | 14.62       |
| 2008:Q2 | 81.4   | 14.56       |
| 2008:Q3 | 79.31  | 14.7        |
| 2008:Q4 | 75.91  | 14.4        |
| 2009:Q1 | 74.54  | 14.3        |
| 2009:Q2 | 75.01  | 14.28       |
| 2009:Q3 | 76.51  | 14.28       |
| 2009:Q4 | 76.77  | 14.28       |
| 2010:Q1 | 77.84  | 14.17       |
| 2010:Q2 | 77.34  | 14.11       |
| 2010:Q3 | 79.35  | 14.05       |
| 2010:Q4 | 80.92  | 14.06       |
| 2011:Q1 | 81.98  | 14.04       |
| 2011:Q2 | 82.35  | 14          |
| 2011:Q3 | 80.54  | 13.95       |
| 2011:Q4 | 81.85  | 13.95       |
| 2012:Q1 | 83.83  | 13.91       |
| 2012:Q2 | 83.8   | 13.86       |
| 2012:Q3 | 85.8   | 13.9        |
| 2012:Q4 | 86.82  | 13.89       |
| 2013:Q1 | 89.67  | 13.85       |
| 2013:Q2 | 90.82  | 13.86       |
| 2013:Q3 | 93.47  | 13.93       |
| 2013:Q4 | 95.72  | 14.11       |
| 2014:Q1 | 97.39  | 14.1        |
| 2014:Q2 | 99.41  | 14.2        |
| 2014:Q3 | 100.01 | 14.2        |
| 2014:Q4 | 101.96 | 14.26       |
| 2015:Q1 | 103.78 | 14.23       |
| 2015:Q2 | 104.46 | 14.36       |
| 2015:Q3 | 103.54 | 14.43       |
| 2015:Q4 | 105.12 | 14.45       |
| 2016:Q1 | 106.29 | 14.45       |
| 2016:Q2 | 107.87 | 14.58       |
| 2016:Q3 | 109.87 | 14.77       |
| 2016:Q4 | 110.67 | 14.87       |
| 2017:Q1 | 113.18 | 14.92       |
| 2017:Q2 | 115.06 | 15.07       |
| 2017:Q3 | 117.11 | 15.21       |
| 2017:Q4 | 119.97 | 15.42       |
| 2018:Q1 | 121.08 | 15.46       |
| 2018:Q2 | 122.73 | 15.6        |
| 2018:Q3 | 124.79 | 15.78       |
| 2018:Q4 | 121.26 | 15.91       |
| 2019:Q1 | 127.04 | 15.9        |
| 2019:Q2 | 129.53 | 16.08       |
| 2019:Q3 | 130.56 | 16.25       |
| 2019:Q4 | 134.3  | 16.42       |
| 2020:Q1 | 127.84 | 16.49       |
| 2020:Q2 | 136.13 | 16.5        |
| 2020:Q3 | 140.62 | 16.77       |
| 2020:Q4 | 148.98 | 17.06       |
| 2021:Q1 | 154.16 | 17.24       |
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

August 30, 2024 CR-2023-0681Walker Coleman Barkley v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Lee Circuit Court: CC22-381) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on August 30, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                          AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SEVERANCE
                            AND EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         AMENDMENT  NO. 1 TO  EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT,  dated  August 2, 1999 by
and between Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. (the "Company") and ___________________
(the "Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into a Severance
and Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of August 2, 1999; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to
correct an inadvertent effect of option accelerations upon the change of control
of the Company.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
set forth herein and in the Agreement and for good and valuable consideration,
the parties agree as follows:

          1. Section 18 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:

         18. ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS. Anything in this Agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding, in the event that any payment or distribution to or for the
Executive's benefit, whether paid or payable or distributed or distributable
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise pursuant to or by reason of
any other agreement, policy, plan, program, or arrangement (including without
limitation any stock option agreement), or similar right (a "Payment"), would be
subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code
(the "Code"), or any interest or penalties with respect to such excise tax (such
excise tax, together with any such interest and penalties, are hereafter
collectively referred to as the "Excise Tax"), then the Executive shall be
entitled to receive an additional payment or payments (a "Gross-Up Payment") in
an amount such that, after payment by the Executive of all federal, state,
local, or foreign taxes (including any interest or penalties imposed with
respect to such taxes), including any Excise Tax, imposed upon the Gross-Up
Payment, the Executive retains an amount of the Gross-Up Payment equal to the
Excise Tax imposed upon the payments.

          2. The remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect without modification.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1
to Severance and Control Agreement to be signed as of the date first written
above.

ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO.                    EXECUTIVE

_____________________________               ___________________________________
By:__________________________               By:________________________________
Title:_______________________               Title:_____________________________