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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4,546
<SECURITIES>                                   2,110
<RECEIVABLES>                                372,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,913
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             178,649
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               553,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        155,977
<BONDS>                                      221,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         150
<OTHER-SE>                                   175,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 553,022
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              72,888
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              30,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              18,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            21,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,629
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,105
<DISCONTINUED>                                16,404
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  18,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.21


</TABLE>
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 March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Joy E. Leo, EVP, Chief Administration Officer and Acting 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/ JOY E. LEOJoy E. LeoEVP, Chief Administration Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
 
 Date: May 10, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 25168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10344]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 77 FR 24201, 
Monday, April 23, 2012.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, April 25, 
2012, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: 

Open Session

Item No 1. Announcement of Notation Votes,
Item No 2. Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and 
Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, and
Item No 3. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue 
Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended has been 
removed from the Agenda.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting 
Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    Dated: April 25, 2012.
Bernadette B. Wilson,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2012-10344 Filed 4-25-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
#### New Victoria Importing Co. v. United States

No. 6911.

Entry No. 3364, etc.

Invoices dated Courtray, Belgium, August 26, 1938, etc.

Certified August 27, 1938, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., October 25, 1938, etc.

(Decided February 24, 1947)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise, cotton rugs from Belgium, and the issues involved in the Reappraisement Appeals 129809-A-4954, etc., listed in annexed schedule A, which is referred to and made a part of this stipulation, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues which were passed upon in the case of *United States*v. *Stephen Rug Mills, Inc.,*Reappraisements 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, wherein it was held that there was no foreign value for the merchandise; that export value was the proper basis for determining dutiable value, and that the export values for the merchandise were the entered values.

> (2) That the record in said case, Reappraisements 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dee. 6283, may be and hereby is received in evidence as a part of the record in this case.

> (3) That the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise in suit to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, are the appraised values less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

> (4) The appeals listed in the annexed schedule A are hereby submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the amounts added *407on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2014315EN.01002202.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I (Germany)) — Adala Bero v Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)

(Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13) (1)

1

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 16(1) - Detention for the purpose of removal - Detention in prison accommodation - Not possible to provide accommodation for third-country nationals in a specialised detention facility - No such facility in the Land where the third-country national is detained))

2014/C 315/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adala Bero (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate (C-514/13)

Applicants:

Defendants: Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as requiring a Member State, as a rule, to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

1

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.139



                       RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            BOWHUNTER MAGAZINE, INC.

                                    ARTICLE I

     The name of this Corporation is Bowhunter Magazine, Inc.

                                   ARTICLE II

     The registered office of this Corporation is located at c/o C T Corporation
System, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphia. PA 19103.

                                   ARTICLE III

     This Corporation shall be organized on a stock share basis. This
Corporation is authorized to issue an aggregate total of 1,000 shares, all of
which shall be designated Common Stock, having a par value of $.01 per share.

                                   ARTICLE IV

     This Corporation is incorporated under the provisions of the Business
Corporation Law of 1988.

                                    ARTICLE V

     No shareholder of this Corporation shall have any cumulative voting rights.

                                   ARTICLE VI

     No shareholder of this Corporation shall have any preemptive rights to
subscribe for, purchase or acquire any shares of the Corporation of any class,
whether unissued or now or hereafter authorized, or any obligations or other
securities convertible into or exchangeable for any such shares.

                                   ARTICLE VII

     The name of the directors of the Corporation are James A. Alcott, David C.
Cox and Christopher M. Little.

                                  ARTICLE VIII

     No director of this Corporation shall be personally liable to the
Corporation or its shareholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary
duty by such director as a


<PAGE>


director unless (i) the director has breached or failed to perform the duties of
his office under the Pennsylvania Statutes; and (ii) the breach or failure to
perform constitutes self-dealing, willful misconduct or recklessness. This
Article shall not apply to: (A) the responsibility or liability of a director
pursuant to any criminal statute; or (B) the liability of a director for the
payment of taxes pursuant to Federal, State or local law.
Order entered May 21 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00894
- CV ERIC DRAKE, Appellant
V. KRISTINA KASTL , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 09
- 01374
- E 

### O RDER In an order dated April 29, 2014, the Court ordered John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file a sealed supplemental clerk’s record containing Exhibits A

- 1 and A

- 2 that were purportedly filed under seal as attachments to the defendants’ Jan uary 18, 2012 motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract counter claim. The Dallas County Clerk’s office and Vikki Ogden, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas, have informed the Court that the two exhib its cannot be located. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact regarding the following:
1. w hether Exhibits A

- 1 and A

- 2 were tendered with the defendants’ January 18, 2012 motion for summary judgment;2. if t he two exhibits were tendered, w hether they were filed under seal;
3. i f the two exhibits were filed but have been lost, whether they are relevant to appellant’s appeal and necessary to the appeal’s resolution;
4. i f the two exhibits are lost and are rele vant and necessary , whether they can be replaced by agreement of the parties; and
5. if the parties cannot agree and the two exhibits are relevant and necessary, determine what constitutes an accurate copy of the two exhibits.
We ORDER the trial court to t ransmit a sealed supplemental clerk’s record containing its written f indings of fact, any orders, any supporting documentation , and a copy, if any, of the reconstructed exhibits to t his Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We ORDER Vikki Og den, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas, to file the reporter’s record from the hearing within FORTY
- FIVE days of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order, by electron ic transmission, to the Honorable Mark Greenberg, Judge of County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas, Ms. Ogden, John Warren, and all parties. We further DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a courtesy copy of this order , by electronic transmiss ion, to attorney Matthew Kita

. The Court GRANTS appellant’s May 15, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a brief to the extent that the Court suspends the current deadline and will set a new deadline for appellant’s brief once this appeal is reinst ated.
We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal will be reinstated forty

- five days from the date of this order or when the supplementalclerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and the reporter’s record from the hearing are received, whichever occurs sooner.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1182

SHAUN BROWN; JENEVER BROWN; JOBS VIRGINIA COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOBS, (JOBS),

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, (USDA); WILLIAM 

STRONG, in his official and individual capacity; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH, (VDH),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01377-LO-MSN)

Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaun Brown and Jenever Brown, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaun Brown, Jenever Brown, and Jobs Virginia Community Development Corp. 

seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to appoint counsel. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Appellants 

seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 965 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding “that orders denying 

motions for appointment of counsel in civil cases are not subject to interlocutory 

appeals”).

*

 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

 * Although the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice before we 

considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional 

defect. Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.

1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed could 

have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision” 

cannot be saved under doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks omitted)).
No. 39245.

#### Protests 261604-G, etc., of Abraham & Straus, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of vases, atomizers, boxes, powder boxes, perfume bottles, sprayers, photo frames, perfume sets, jars, trays, and bottles chiefly used in the kitchen or household or on the table for utilitarian purposes or hollow ware. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
#### Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia *v.*Scranton Lackawanna Trust Company et al., Appellants.

*444Argued April 24, 1936.

Before Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*Earl V. McLaughlin,*with him *R. P. Campbell, David J. Dams*and *E. R. Van Deusen,*for appellants.

*C. H. Welles,*of *Welles, Mumford, Stark & McGrath,*for appellee.

June 26, 1936:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

This is a proceeding under the Deficiency Judgment Act of July 1, 1935, P. L. 503, 21 P. S. 806, to fix the fair value of real estate sold at sheriff’s sale under a mortgage foreclosure. The court fixed the value at $31,000 and entered a deficiency judgment for $9,406.29.

*445Appellants contend that the value should have been found to be higher, that the court disregarded the rule defining fair value as we have declared it and also disregarded the testimony of real estate experts called to establish value and based its conclusion on the nonexistence of a mythical person called “a willing purchaser” and on the fact that no willing purchaser has actually appeared. We do not so measure the court’s finding. While it is true the court in its opinion speaks, perhaps somewhat facetiously, about “what the price would have been if a willing seller had met a mythical and at present nonexistent person entitled ‘a willing purchaser,’ ” its opinion shows that the conclusion was reached by weighing the testimony of the seven qualified experts who were called, three by petitioner and four by respondents, whose estimates of fair value ranged from $28,000 to $45,000.

The court adopted the highest value fixed by petitioner’s witnesses, namely $31,000. All of the witnesses based their estimates on the fair market value on the date of the sheriff’s sale. Those called by appellants, who fixed the higher value, made their estimates upon the assumption that the purchaser would spend $5,000 in repairs to the building which was old and in poor condition. In coming to its decision we are satisfied the court followed our ruling in *Market Street National Bank v. Huff,*319 Pa. 286, 179 Atl. 582. The cases cited by appellants about reviewing deductions from undisputed facts have no application here. The conclusion had to be reached by weighing conflicting evidence.

In cases of this class we are loath to disturb the findings of the courts of first instance. As we said in *Webster's Est.,*314 Pa. 233, 236, 171 Atl. 568, 570, “in the very nature of things we must rely upon the judgments of the courts of first instance in fixing values.”

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2014102EN.01003101.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Lisa Kelly v Minister for Social Protection

(Case C-403/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/49

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              WASHINGTON, DC 20549
                              --------------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 23, 2007
                                                          ---------------


                     FIRST LITCHFIELD FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                     --------------------------------------
               (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

           Delaware                     0-28815                   06-1241321
           --------                     -------                   ----------
(State or other Jurisdiction    (Commission File Number)       (IRS Employer
       of Incorporation)                                     Identification No.)

    13 North Street, Litchfield, Connecticut                    06759
    ----------------------------------------                    -----
    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                  (Zip Code)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (860) 567-8752
                                                           --------------

                                       N/A
                                       ---
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<page>

Form 8-K, Current Report
First Litchfield Financial Corporation



Section 8.  Other Events.

         Item 8.01.  Other Events.
                     ------------

         The Board of Directors of First Litchfield  Financial  Corporation (the
"Company")  declared a $0.15 per share  quarterly  cash dividend at their August
23, 2007 Board Meeting.  The quarterly cash dividend will be paid on October 23,
2007, to stockholders of record as of September 6, 2007.

Section 9.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.
            ---------------------------------

         Item 9.01  Financial Statements and Exhibits.
                    ---------------------------------

         (a) Not applicable.
         (b) Not applicable.
         (c) Exhibits.
             99.1   Press release dated August 24, 2007.


                                   SIGNATURES


         Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the  Registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.


                     FIRST LITCHFIELD FINANCIAL CORPORATION


                            BY:  /s/ JOSEPH J. GRECO
                                 ------------------------
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  August 24, 2007


                                      -2-