alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,216
<INVENTORY>                                     48,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,239
<PP&E>                                          27,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,001
<SALES>                                        124,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,876
<CGS>                                          107,440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,674
<LOSS-PRETAX>                                  (22,900)
<INCOME-TAX BENEFIT>                            (8,015)
<LOSS-CONTINUING>                              (14,885)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-LOSS>                                     (14,885)
<LOSS PER SHARE-PRIMARY>                          (.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

October 18, 1956

No. 60290.

protest 224960-K (Denver).

#### Needlers British Imports *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

At the trial, a representative of the plaintiff made an unsworn statement, introduced a sample of the knives, which was received in evidence as exhibit 1, and requested that the protest serve the dual purpose of protest and brief. From an examination of the protest, it was apparent that the plaintiff recognized the applicability of paragraph 355, as modified, *supra,*to its importation, but sought the benefit of a lower rate of duty thereon, i. e., 2 cents each plus 12)4 percent ad valorem, contending that the knives are all-purpose knives rather than being limited to bread cutting. While the protest indicated that “Owing to the fact that our costings has bee.n based on the lower rate, any increase in duties would entail hardship and some loss,” the record did not afford sufficient evidence to justify the court in disturbing the action of the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
Case No. 14,875.

#### UNITED STATES v. COULTER.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 203.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1804.

Disorderly House—Selling Liquor to Negroes —Sunday Selling—License.

The practice of selling spirituous liquors, in a public manner, to aegroes and slaves, assembled in considerable numbers, and suffering them to drink the same in and about the house on the Sabbath, constitutes the offence of keeping a disorderly house, although the owner may have a tavern license

[Cited in State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 733.]

Indictment for keeping a disorderly house.

Mr. Morsell. for the defendant,

contended that a disorderly house is only indictable at common law as a common nuisance, and that actual disorder must be proved. Coulter had a license to keep a tavern; he is only prohibited by statute from selling on Sundays; from dealing with slaves, &e.

Mr. Jones, for the United States.

A bawdy-house is indictable as a common nuisance, and yet it is not necessary to prove that any one person has been disturbed by it. The tendency to corrupt the morals makes it a common nuisance.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT.

The license does not authorize the defendant to sell to slaves *or*negroes on a Sunday; it is therefore no justification as to those facts. The practice of selling spirituous liquors in a public manner to negroes and slaves, assembled in considerable numbers, and suffering them to drink the same in and about the house on the Sabbath, constitutes the offence of keeping a disorderly house.

Verdict guilty. Fined ?10.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 3, 2016

NO. 03-15-00271-CV

Cynthia Walker, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Norman Walker; Stephen 

Walker; Stephanie Walker Hatton; Jordan Walker; and Caren Ann Johnson, Appellants

v.

UME, Inc. d/b/a Camp Huaco Springs; WWGAF, Inc. d/b/a Rockin 'R' River Rides; 

William George Rivers; and Richard Duane Rivers, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 21, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellants shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 279 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 279

   Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 200th birthday 
                celebration of the Library of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2000

  Mr. Franks of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Hoyer) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 200th birthday 
                celebration of the Library of Congress.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF EVENT TO CELEBRATE THE 200TH BIRTHDAY OF 
              THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

    The Library of Congress (in this resolution referred to as the 
``sponsor'') shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 200th 
birthday celebration of the Library of Congress (in this resolution 
referred to as the ``event''), on the Capitol Grounds on April 24, 
2000, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event shall be free of admission charge to the 
public and arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under 
conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--Subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, the sponsor may erect upon the Capitol 
Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and other related 
structures and equipment as may be required for the event.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any such additional 
arrangements as may be required to carry out the event, including 
arrangements to limit access to First Street Southeast between 
Independence Avenue and East Capitol Street.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 5.1



   
                                 July 16, 1998
    


Integrated Process Equipment Corp.
911 Bern Court
San Jose, California 95122

         RE:      REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-3

Gentlemen:

   
         We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-3 to be filed by
you with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about July 16, 1998 (the
"Registration Statement"), in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of up to 1,456,000 shares of your Common
Stock (the "Shares"), 1,000,000 shares (the "Issued Shares") of which have been
issued pursuant to a Subscription Agreement dated December 12, 1996 and 456,000
shares (the "Warrant Shares") of which are issuable upon the exercise of an
outstanding warrant for Common Stock. The Shares are to be sold by the Selling
Stockholder as described in the Registration Statement.
    

         As your counsel, we have examined the proceedings taken by you in
connection with the issuance of the Shares. It is our opinion that the Issued
Shares are legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable. It is also our opinion
that upon valid exercise of the warrants of the Company held by the Selling
Stockholder as described in the Registration Statement, and receipt by the
Company of the full consideration to be paid upon exercise, the Warrant Shares
will be legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

         We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and further consent to all references to us in the Registration
Statement, the Prospectus constituting a part thereof and any amendments thereto
which have been approved by us.

                                       Very truly yours,


                                       WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
                                       Professional Corporation


                                       /s/ WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 10.40

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4

                         TO PHARMCHEM LABORATORIES, INC.

                            1992 DIRECTOR OPTION PLAN


        This Amendment No. 4 (the "Amendment") to the PharmChem Laboratories,
Inc. 1992 Director Option Plan, as heretofore amended (the "Plan"), is made
effective as of the 18th day of February, 2000 by the Administrator of the Plan
pursuant to Section 11(a) of the Plan. All capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Plan.

                                    AMENDMENT

        The Plan is hereby amended as follows:

        1. The number of "5,000" in Sections 4(b)(ii) and 4 (b)(iii) of the Plan
is hereby changed to the number "10,000".

        2. The references to "five (5) years" in Sections 4(b)(v) (A) and
4(b)(vi)(A) of the Plan are hereby changed to "ten (10) years".

        3. The second sentence of Section 6 of the Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:

                "It shall continue in effect through March 31, 2004 unless
                sooner terminated under Section 11 of the Plan."

        4. The references to "its five (5) year term" in Sections 8(c), 8(d),
8(e) (i) and 8(e)(ii) of the Plan are hereby changed to "its ten (10) year
term".

        5. Section 11(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

                "(b) Effect of Amendment or Termination. Any such amendment or
                termination of the Plan made without the consent of the Optionee
                shall not affect Options already granted and such Options shall
                remain in full force and effect as if this Plan had not been
                amended or terminated."

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed effective as of the date
first set forth above by the Administrator of the Plan, which Administrator
consists of the Outside Directors of the Company.


                                                  /s/ Richard D. Irwin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                  Richard D. Irwin


                                                 /s/ Donald R. Stroben
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                 Donald R. Stroben
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CBRE REALTY FINANCE, INC.



|                                                   |  |                                           
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                                               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|CBRE Realty Finance Holdings, LLC                  |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance TRS, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance TRS, LLC                       |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance Holdings II, LLC               |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance Holdings III, LLC              |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance Holdings IV, LLC               |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance Holdings CDO Funding, LLC      |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance TRS Warehouse Funding, LLC     |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance TRS Warehouse Funding II, LLC  |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance TRS Warehouse Funding III, LLC |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance CDO 2006-1, Ltd.               |  | Cayman Islands                            
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance CDO 2006-1, LLC                |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance CDO 2006-1 Depositor, LLC      |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance CDO 2007-1, Ltd                |  | Cayman Islands                            
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance CDO 2007-1, LLC                |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                   | 
|CBRE Realty Finance Trust I                        |  | Delaware
Before the Second Division,

May 2, 1963

No. 67671.

#### George Joannau Cycle Co. and John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/14618 and 58/25751 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 20

- 2072

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antonio Donnel Johnson, also known as Pig

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: April 12, 2021 Filed: July 7, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and S HEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio D. Johnson pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(9), and 924(a)(2) . The district court 1 sentenced

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.-2- him to 60 months in prison. He appeal s his conviction. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The district court set Johnson’s base offense level at 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because he had a prior “ controlled substance offense ” for possessing mariju ana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(d) and 124.204(m). The guidelines range was 70 to 87 months. The
court varied downward

, sentencing Johnson to 60 months.

Johnson believes his Iowa conviction is not a controlled substance offense.
This court reviews de novo

. See United States v. Williams, 926 F.3d 966, 969 (8th
Cir. 20 19). There is no merit to this argument. A “controlled substance offense” is a state or federal offense, punishable by impriso nment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits , among other things, the manufacture or distribution of a “ controlled
substance

. ” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (b). The includes “aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such offenses.” Id

. , comme nt. (n.1).

Johnson argues the Iowa statue is overbroad because it includes aiding, abetting, conspiracy, and attempt. Eighth Circuit precedent precludes this argument.
This court has held that “ U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 , comment. (n.1)

, is a reasonable interpretation of the career offender guidelines that is well within the Sentencing Commission’s statutory authority.” United States v. Mendoza

- Figueroa , 65 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1995)

. See United States v. Garcia , 946 F.3d 413 , 417 (8th Ci r. 2019) (holding that a prior conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of meth
is a controlled substance offense ). This court also has held a conviction under Iowa
Code § 124.401(1)(d) is a controlled substance offense. See United States v. Clayborn , 951 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting the argument that a
conviction under Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) is overbroad because it includes aiding, abetting, and conspiring).

The district court did not err in finding Johnson had a prior control led
substance offense.-3- * * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed

.

______________________________
Page 1 of 2

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20551

DIVISION OF SUPERVISION

AND REGULATION

SR 20-22

October 9, 2020

TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISION AND APPROPRIATE 

SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINATION STAFF AT EACH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK 

AND INSTITUTIONS SUPERVISED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE

SUBJECT: ISDA IBOR Fallback Protocol and IBOR Fallback Supplement 

Applicability: This letter applies to all institutions supervised by the Federal Reserve.

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) recently announced an IBOR 

Fallback Protocol and IBOR Fallback Supplement (together, the Protocol). The Protocol 

facilitates the transition away from LIBOR by providing derivatives market participants with 

new fallbacks for legacy and new derivative contracts.

The publication of LIBOR is not guaranteed after 2021, and its continued use by market 

participants poses risks to financial stability. Given these financial stability risks, the Federal 

Reserve strongly supports the transition away from LIBOR and expects supervised institutions to 

manage the risks associated with this transition in a manner commensurate with their size and 

risk profile. Examiners should alert supervised firms to announcement of the Protocol and 

encourage those that are active in the derivatives market—particularly those with large LIBOR 

denominated derivatives exposures—to give strong consideration to adhering to the Protocol. 

Derivatives represent the vast majority of the outstanding LIBOR exposure, and existing 

language in derivatives contracts should be amended to include more durable fallbacks that can 

withstand a possible discontinuation of LIBOR. The Protocol provides an efficient mechanism 

to amend a large number of derivatives contracts with many counterparties, and therefore will 

play an important role in an orderly transition away from LIBOR. 

 

Broad adherence by market participants to the Protocol is important for mitigating the financial 

stability risks associated with LIBOR becoming unusable. The Protocol will help preserve 

derivatives market functioning, by allowing LIBOR derivatives contracts to continue to perform 

through the transition. The Federal Reserve is supportive of ISDA’s efforts and encourages the 

continuation of work to facilitate the transition away from LIBOR in the derivatives market.
Page 2 of 2

Reserve Banks are asked to distribute this letter to the supervised organizations in their districts 

and to appropriate supervisory staff.

In addition, institutions may send questions via the Board’s public website.1

Michael S. Gibson

Director

Division of

Supervision and Regulation

1 See http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/contactus/feedback.aspx
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 168 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.168
                                         Agreed to July 30, 1999        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 132(a) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198(a)), the House of 
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess 
of three days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have 
adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment (in 
excess of three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```