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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,791
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,684
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,875
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,885
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          16,827
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            16,906
<LOANS>                                        129,542
<ALLOWANCE>                                        703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,496
<DEPOSITS>                                     156,913
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,024
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 176,496
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,500
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,173
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   300
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,973
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,390
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,469
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              617
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      135
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    849
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         849
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.92
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     8.2
<LOANS-NON>                                        289
<LOANS-PAST>                                       603
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   621
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      168
<RECOVERIES>                                       115
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  703
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            703
        

</TABLE>
No. 62386.

#### Cleveland Worsted Mills Co. *v.*United States,

protests 293571-K, 293572-K, and 293573-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rates applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed "Clean Content Under (T. D. 53159)” in the schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1378

BARBARA ANN KELLY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

GREGORY B. MYERS,

Debtor,

v.

MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, GREEN & LYNCH, P.A.,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

ROGER SCHLOSSBERG,

Trustee – Appellee.

No. 22-1379

GREGORY B. MYERS,

Debtor – Appellant,

BARBARA ANN KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1378 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, GREEN & LYNCH, P.A.,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

ROGER SCHLOSSBERG,

Trustee – Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:21-cv-01186-GJH; 8:21-cv-01184-GJH; 8:21-cv01185-GJH)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Ann Kelly and Gregory B. Myers, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel Russell Hodges, 

ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Frank Joseph Mastro, SCHLOSSBERG 

MASTRO, Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1378 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Ann Kelly and Gregory B. Myers appeal the district court’s order

dismissing their bankruptcy appeals for failure to timely file designations of the records on 

appeal as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1). On appeal, we confine our review to 

the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the informal briefs 

filed by Kelly and Myers do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, they

have forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 

F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth 

Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. Additionally, we deny Kelly’s and Myers’ motions to 

dismiss their appeals without prejudice, deny the Appellees’ motions to dismiss the 

appeals, and deny the Trustee’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1378 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
No. 68619.

protests 59/34184, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NO. 07-04-0314-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A SEPTEMBER 2, 2004

______________________________ SCHOENB ORN & DOL L ENTER PRISES, INC., INTERVENER INTO JUDY NOLAN, APPE LLANT V. AMERICAN CLUB SYSTEMS, INC., APPELL EE

_________________________________ FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUB BOCK COUNTY; NO. 2002- 517,144; HONORAB LE SAM ME DINA, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Schoenborn & Doll Enterpr ises, Inc., Interve ner into Judy Nolan, perfected this appeal challenging thetrial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee American Club Systems, Inc. Pending before this Court is Schoenborn’ s motion bywhich it represent

s it desires to have this appeal dismissed without prejudice. Without passing on2

the merits of

the case, the motion is granted and the a ppeal is hereby d ismissed
. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)( 1). Don H. Reavis Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1998
<CASH>                                          11,135
<SECURITIES>                                       785
<RECEIVABLES>                                  216,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,738
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,355
<PP&E>                                          24,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,479
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       108,010
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,276
<SALES>                                        189,150
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               117,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,245
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,558
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,687
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,687
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
No. 56271.

protest 610845-G (New York).

#### O. Yoshizawa Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 58846.

protest 238339-K (New York).

#### Imperial International Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of scissor blades similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58172, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
exv10w11



 


Exhibit 10.11


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



          This Amendment is dated as of February 5, 2003 by and between Dan Gladney
(the “Executive”) and Compex Technologies, Inc. (fka Rehabilicare Inc. and
hereafter the “Company”)



          WHEREAS, Company and Executive are parties to that certain employment
agreement dated as of August 12, 2002 (the “Employment Agreement”); and



          WHEREAS, Company and Executive agree that the Employment Agreement
incorrectly allows the Company to terminate the employment agreement and avoid
severance pay, and that the intention of the parties was that the employment
agreement, and the employment of Executive, not be terminated except in
accordance with the termination provisions contained in the Employment
Agreement.



          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree that Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



     “2. Term. This Employment Agreement, and Executive’s employment
hereunder, shall continue until terminated in accordance with the provisions of
Section 9 herein.”


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this amendment as of the date
first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
COMPANY:
	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
Compex Technologies, Inc.	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By	 	
/s/ John Maley
	 	/s/ Dan Gladney
	 	 	


	 	

	 	 	
John Maley, Chairman
	 	Dan Gladney



1
Exhibit 5.1

                            OPINION OF FRENCH COUNSEL



                                             Paris, 4 June, 2002



Dear Sirs,


In connection with a Registration Statement on Form S-8 under the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Act") relating to the offering of 900,000 ordinary shares, nominal
value 6 euros per  ordinary  share (the  "Shares"),  of ALSTOM  (the  "Company")
pursuant  to the ALSTOM  Stock  Option  Plan No. 3 July 24,  2001 and the ALSTOM
Stock  Option Plan January 8, 2002  (collectively,  the "Option  Plans"),  I, as
Senior Vice  President  and General  Counsel of the Company,  have examined such
corporate records,  certificates and other documents, and such questions of law,
as I considered necessary or appropriate for the purposes of this opinion.  Upon
the basis of such  examination,  I advise you that, in my opinion (i) the Shares
have been validly  authorized,  and (ii) once the options under the Option Plans
are validly exercised and the subscription price of the corresponding  shares is
fully paid, the Shares  issuable under the Option Plans will be validly  issued,
fully paid, and non assessable.

The  foregoing  opinion is limited to the laws of the Republic of France,  and I
express no opinion as to the effect of the law of any other jurisdiction.

I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.  In giving  such  consent,  I do not  thereby  admit that I am in the
category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act.



                                             Very truly yours,



                                             /S/ A.P. HIBBERT
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             A.P. Hibbert
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 93 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 93

 Providing for the appointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2000

 Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself and Mr. Regula) introduced the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the appointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the resignation of Louis Gerstner of New York, is filled by 
the appointment of Alan G. Spoon of Maryland. The appointment is for a 
term of six years and shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 538 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 27, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House, without intervention of 

any question of consideration, the bill (H.R. 3823) to amend 

title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the 

airport improvement program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to provide disaster tax relief, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The 

bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 

final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
2 

•HRES 538 EH 

Ways and Means and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative 

day of September 28, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 

clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
H. J. Res. 84

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

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

106–275, is further amended by striking the date specified in section

106(c) and inserting ‘‘November 14, 2000’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 14, 2009

  Decided October 28, 2009

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JOAQUIN J. TANKEY,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 3:06‐cr‐50074‐1

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

O R D E R

Joaquin Tankey pleaded guilty to conspiring to acquire and distribute cocaine, and

to carrying a gun during that crime.  He was sentenced to a total term of 216 months (156 +

60) on the two counts.  Tankey has appealed despite the fact that he waived his right to do

so in a written plea agreement.  His appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Tankey opposes counsel’s motion.  See CIR. R. 51(b).

Counsel says Tankey wants his guilty pleas vacated, but the record is unclear on this

point.  At any rate, because Tankey did not move to withdraw his pleas in district court, our

review of the plea colloquy would be limited to plain error.  United States v. Griffin, 521 F.3d

727, 730 (7th Cir. 2008).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐3207 Page 2

We agree with counsel that any argument challenging the adequacy of the plea

colloquy or the voluntariness of Tankey’s guilty pleas would be frivolous.  Counsel asserts,

and we agree, that the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(b) before accepting Tankey’s guilty pleas.  It is true, as counsel points out, that

the district court did not advise Tankey of the court’s authority to order restitution, or that

Tankey could compel the attendance of witnesses at trial.  But mentioning restitution was

unnecessary because none was, or could be, imposed.  And the court’s failure to mention

Tankey’s right to compulsory process was harmless because that information was already

covered in the written plea agreement.  See United States v. Driver, 242 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir.

2001).

So the guilty pleas are not subject to challenge, and that also means that the appeal

waiver will be enforced.  See United States v. Linder, 530 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2008); United

States v. Blinn, 490 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2007).  Tankey responds that the waiver could not

have been voluntary because both his own counsel and the prosecutor misled him into

believing that his sentence would ultimately rest on a finding of 3.5 kilograms, not 20, of

cocaine.  Tankey swore during the plea colloquy, however, that he read and understood the

entire plea agreement.  The agreement includes Tankey’s concession that “at least” 3.5

kilograms were at issue, as well as the government position that the actual number was 20

kilograms.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw filed by counsel and DISMISS

Tankey’s appeal.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code(18 U.S.C. §1350), Jeffrey Staszak, Chief Executive Officer of Volterra Semiconductor Corporation(the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 9th day of August,2006.     By: /s/ Jeffrey Staszak              Jeffrey Staszak
Before the Second Division,

April 5, 1962

No. 66668.

#### C. H. Powell Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/11984, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of military visor insignia, in chief value of lame, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63445, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



           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 CNBC Bancorp ("CNBC") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of CNBC hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of CNBC as of and for the periods covered in the Report.




/s/ Thomas D. Mcauliffe
-----------------------------------------------
Thomas D. McAuliffe, Chairman and President
Chief Executive Officer, Commerce National Bank



/s/ Pamela S. Miller
-----------------------------------------------
Pamela S. Miller, Treasurer
Chief Financial Officer, Commerce National Bank



August 12, 2002