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

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>        This schedule contains summary financial information                                 
                extracted from the December 31, 1995 audited financial                                                 
                statements and is qualified in its entirety by                 
                reference to such financial statements.
       

<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995

<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995

<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS

<CASH>                                      49,170

<SECURITIES>                                49,659

<RECEIVABLES>                               25,887

<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,941

<INVENTORY>                                      0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           137,264

<PP&E>                                      24,290

<DEPRECIATION>                              21,755

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             152,836

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       66,976

<BONDS>                                          0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0

<PREFERRED>                                      0

<COMMON>                                       174

<OTHER-SE>                                  84,531

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               152,836

<SALES>                                    467,344

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           473,643


<CGS>                                      414,296

<TOTAL-COSTS>                              459,534

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58

<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,051

<INCOME-TAX>                                (3,625)

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         17,676

<DISCONTINUED>                                   0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0

<CHANGES>                                        0

<NET-INCOME>                                17,676

<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.09

<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .97


</TABLE>
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–49

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 41, THE TAX

LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

APRIL 24, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 118]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 118, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 41, the

Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment, under a modified closed

rule. The rule provides two hours of debate in the House equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The resolution provides for one amendment in the nature of a

substitute if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee and

printed in the Congressional Record, which shall be considered as

read and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule

provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII the results of each

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below:

Rules Committee record vote No. 8

Date: April 24, 2001.

Measure: H.J. Res. 41, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.

Motion by: Mr. Frost.

2

Summary of motion: Make in order an amendment by Representative Jackson Lee that would require a two-thirds vote for any cuts

to Social Security or Medicare Parts A and B.

Results: Defeated 2 to 6.

Vote by Member: Goss—Nay; Linder—Nay; Pryce—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Reynolds—Nay; Frost—Yea; Slaughter—Yea; Dreier— Nay.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,798                   1,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,619                   1,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                       288                     177
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,780                   5,032
<PP&E>                                          52,780                  37,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,304)                (12,324)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,491                  81,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,160                  17,119
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          5                       5
<COMMON>                                             6                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,547                  34,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,491                  81,025
<SALES>                                        127,407                 109,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,407                 109,762
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,820                 104,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (145)                   (248)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,373                   2,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,271                   2,746
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,793                   1,153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,478                   1,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,478                   1,593
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40                    0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33                    0.22


</TABLE>
#### Brooks Brothers *v.*United States

No. 6165.

Invoices dated London, England, April 21, 1942, etc.

Certified April 22, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 20, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 751543, etc.

(Decided June 6, 1945)

*John D. Rode (Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these appeals for reappraisement of wool wearing apparel on a written stipulation, filed May 28, 1945, wherein it is agreed that the issues presented herein are the same as those decided in *United States*v. *460
      *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.*(Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305), and that, the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

In the incorporated case, the court found cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. G. 1940 ed. § 1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that the so-called British purchase' tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.”, was not an item to be included in the “usual general expenses” contemplated-within subdivision (2) of section 402 (f), *supra,*and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel that the several elements entering-into the statutory cost of production of the items in question is equal to the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f), *supra,*which I find to be the proper basis for appraisement, of the instant merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.02





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 PDF Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Gregory Walker, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





By:
/s/ GREGORY WALKERGregory WalkerVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)





Date: August 9, 2012
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1317

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenneth Williams, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: May 8, 2023 

Filed: May 11, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Williams appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to 11 months in prison followed by an additional 24-month

1The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
term of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief

arguing that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, as

there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of

judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Tumea, 810 F.3d

563, 566 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Charles, 531 F.3d 637, 640-41 (8th Cir.

2008). 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# Disposition Services celebrates Women's History Month 2022

DLA Disposition Services Public Affairs

                BATTLE CREEK, Mich.   –              
March is Women's History Month – commemorating and encouraging the study, observance and celebration of the vital role of women in American history. Please take a few moments to view Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services employees speak about the women who inspired them.

11:20VIDEO  | 11:20 |Women's History Month Special Emphasis Video

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA DSHQ DSHeritage and Diversity DSFederal Women's Program DSVideo DSEEO DS
#### Duryea Borough School Directors’ Removal.

Argued April 13, 1936.

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Lixn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*154
      *R. Lawrence Coughlin,*with him *E. Walter Samuel,*for appellants.

*Ben R. Jones, Jr.,*with him *Hopkin T. Rowlands,*for appellees.

May 25, 1936:

Per Curiam,

Two of the school directors of the Borough of Duryea, Luzerne County, removed under section 217 of the Act of May 18,1911, P. L. 309, have appealed from the order. The act referred to provides that if the court shall be of the opinion that directors have failed or neglected to perform any required duty it “shall have the power to remove said board or such of its members as in its opinion it is proper.” The court below found the directors had violated section 1207 of the School Code in permitting a granddaughter of a director to teach without receiving the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the board, and had violated section 1208 of the Code, providing that before any teacher may be dismissed, a reasonable opportunity, after notice in writing, shall be given him or her to be heard.

These findings of the trial judge were approved by the court en banc and an order of ouster was entered Oc*155tober 9, 1935. The question presented is whether the court below exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its legal discretion in ordering an ouster of these school directors.

No express right of appeal is given to school directors ousted under the School Code. This court therefore will consider the matter as upon certiorari only and will review the record so far as may be necessary to ascertain whether the court below exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its legal discretion: *Summit Hill School Directors,*258 Pa. 575, 578; see also *Meiss’s App.,*317 Pa. 28, 29; *Davis’s App.,*314 Pa. 357, *361; Summit Hill School Directors Removal,*289 Pa. 82, 84; *In re Slippery Rock Twp. School Dist.,*222 Pa. 538, 540. Whether we might, had we been the trial court, have reached a different con. elusion upon the facts or drawn other inferences there, from is immaterial. We do not in these cases impose our independent judgment on the evidence. That is exclusively for the court below.

Appellants’ whole argument to show that the court overstepped the legal bounds in ordering the ouster seems to rest on the theory that the violations of the provisions of the statute above enumerated were the result of mistaken judgment on the part of the directors and not of conscious intent to violate the provisions. Our examination of the record discloses no abuse of discretion but, on the contrary, a wise exercise of it.

The order is affirmed at appellants’ cost.
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 OneDentist Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Philip J. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


                                                     /s/ Philip J. Davis
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Philip J. Davis
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer

                                                     November 11, 2002
# C_2013026EN.01005302.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/53

---

Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v OHIM — Lotte (LOTTE)

(Case T-483/12)

2013/C 26/107

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2012 in case R 2103/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2012 in case R 2103/2010-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lotte Co. Ltd

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘LOTTE’ and an image of a koala on a tree, holding a smaller koala, for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application 6 158 463

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘KOALA BÄREN’ and ‘KOALA’ and an image of a koala holding a smaller koala, for goods in Class 30

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal granted; decision of the Opposition Division annulled

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 23

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Amtech Systems, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos.  333-09917,  333-10117  and  333-47098)  on Form S-3 and (Nos.  333-09911,
333-09909 and 333-46086) on Form S-8 of Amtech Systems, Inc. of our report dated
November 27,  2002,  with respect to the  consolidated  balance  sheet of Amtech
Systems, Inc. as of September 30, 2002, and the related consolidated  statements
of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, and
the related financial statement schedule,  which report appears in the September
30, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
December 30, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
DRILLING FUND 1983-2 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          75,872
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,875
<PP&E>                                      13,444,167
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,335,303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,223,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,223,739<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,223,739
<SALES>                                        326,736<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               326,736
<CGS>                                          344,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  344,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,598)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.47)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>OTHER - SE IS COMPOSED OF PARTNERSHIP EQUITY.
<F2>THE SALES LINE INCLUDES 2,935 OF NET INTEREST INCOME AND 2,424 OF SETTLED CLAIMS.
<F3>EPS - PRIMARY IS BASED UPON LIMITED PARTNERS SHARE OF NET INCOME DIVIDED BY THE
OUTSTANDING PARTNERSHIP UNITS OF 15,697.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EX-10.5



 





Exhibit 10.5




COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT WITH EXECUTIVE OFFICER




     On October 18, 2007 the Compensation Committee of Harris Interactive Inc. approved an increase
in the annual base salary for Eric W. Narowski, Principal Accounting Officer, from $155,000 to
$170,000.