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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,682,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,611,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   547,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,847,000
<PP&E>                                       1,526,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,463,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,976,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,825,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,283,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,976,000
<SALES>                                     27,657,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,191,000
<CGS>                                        9,675,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,330,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,855,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             279,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,809,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   548,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,261,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,261,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
<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 Annual Report of Dave & Buster's, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended February 2, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I, James W. Corley, Chief
Executive 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 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.



Date: April 23, 2003
      ---------------------

/s/ James W. Corley
---------------------------------------
James W. Corley
Chief Executive Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 97-50493

Summary Calendar

______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN BONNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-96-CV-27

USDC No. EP-90-CR-86-11

-------------------

September 23, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6
Exhibit 10.28

                             LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING




         This Letter of Understanding is by and between Staruni  Corporation and
Elephant Talk Limited  (collectively  referred hereto as "ET"), on the one hand,
and Vision Aerospace, Inc. ("Vision"), a Nevada corporation, on the other.

         WHEREAS, a merger is scheduled to occur between Staruni Corporation and
Elephant Talk Limited; and

         WHEREAS,  Staruni Corporation's businesses prior to such merger consist
of Cyberhotline.com and Ibargain.com (collectively "the ISP business"); and

         WHEREAS, upon completion of the merger  ET  wishes  to sell off the ISP
business;

         Therefore, the parties understand as follows:

         1.       Shortly after the completion of the merger,  ET shall sell the
                  ISP  business  to  Vision  and shall  also sell to Vision  all
                  assets of Staruni  Corporation  which existed as of January 3,
                  2002,  including  all stock and bank  accounts  (of which such
                  accounts  are  attached  hereto as  Schedule  4.9) of  Staruni
                  Corporation, in exchange for 1,000,000 (one million) shares of
                  Vision.

         This  letter of  understanding  is executed on this 4th day of January,
2002 by the parties listed below.

Dated: January 4, 2002      Elephant Talk Limited
                            Staruni Corporation

                            By:______________________
                               Russelle Choi, CEO

Dated: January 4, 2002      Vision Aerospace, Inc.

                            By:______________________
                               Bruce Stuart, President














                                       1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1348

ANDREA G. BRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELEVATOR CONTROL CORPORATION (El Con); GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA01-1213-CCB) Submitted: July 8, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrea G. Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. Warren D. Stephens, Samuel J. DeBlasis, II, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, L.L.P., Lanham, Maryland; Roann Nichols, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Andrea G. Briggs appeals the district court’s orders granting Respondents’ motions for summary judgment in her negligence action. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Briggs v. Elevator Control Corp. , No. CA-01-1213-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2002 and Mar. 11, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Kansas-Missouri floods of July 1951

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1139

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
07-01-0392-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 15, 2001

EX PARTE CRISELDA ESPINOSA,

Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

Before Boyd, C.J., Quinn and Johnson, JJ.

Pending before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Criselda

Espinosa. Therein, she contends that her liberty is being unlawfully restrained via a void

enforcement order. By letter dated October 4, 2001, this court informed the real party in

interest, Shannon Sepeda, to respond to the petition “no later than October 11, 2001.” To

date, no response has been received. We grant the writ for the reason which follows.

Through her first point, Espinosa argues that the enforcement order which

mandated her incarceration was void. It was allegedly so because she was not informed

of her right to counsel when she appeared pro se at the hearing on Sepeda’s motion to

enforce. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §157.163 (b) (Vernon 1996) (obligating the trial court

to inform a respondent not represented by counsel of the right to such representation if it

determines that incarceration is a possible result from entertaining a motion to enforce).
2

Sepeda had moved to enforce the terms of a prior court order specifying his visitation

rights viz-a-viz his child. Espinosa allegedly impeded his enjoyment of those rights on

numerous occasions and requested that she be “held in contempt, jailed, and fined for

each violation . . . .” 

Again, Espinosa appeared at the hearing without counsel. That the trial court was

aware of this situation is indisputable because Espinosa had moved to continue the

hearing so that she could obtain counsel, and whether to grant that motion was discussed

in open court. The motion to continue was denied, and Espinosa was not informed of her

right to appointed counsel. Because that admonishment was not afforded her, the “Order

of Contempt” subsequently executed by the trial court is void. Ex parte Acker, 949 S.W.2d

314, 316 (Tex. 1997) (holding that the failure to provide such an admonishment renders

the ensuing commitment void). 

Accordingly, we conclude that the “Order of Contempt” signed on September 26,

2001 is void, and we order Criselda Espinosa discharged.

Brian Quinn

 Justice

Do not publish.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NOAH MEISENHEIMER,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent

______________________

2020-2025

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-19-0652-I-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

LAWRENCE BERGER, Mahon & Berger, Esqs., Glen Cove, 

NY, argued for petitioner. 

 ANN MOTTO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 20-2025 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 06/11/2021
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (TARANTO, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

June 11, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-2025 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 06/11/2021
254 La. 911

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darrel RAYMOND, James Corsey, A. J. Meyers.

No. 50233.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1969.

In re: Darrel Raymond, James Corsey and A. J. Meyers applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, Justice,

is of the opinion that upon the allegations of the application and the return of the court, which fails to negate them, a sufficient showing is made for the granting of the writs. Relators applied for a preliminary examination on or before October 16, 1969, and although an order for the examination was signed by the judge, it was left undated. On October 31 a hearing was fixed for November 10. During the grand jury session of November 3 and before the date set for the hearing, an indictment was returned.

C.Cr.P. Art. 292 provides in the first paragraph: “Before the finding of an indictment or the filing of an information the court, on request of the state or of the defendant, *shall immediately*order a preliminary examination in felony cases.” The second paragraph of that article provides that after indictment or information the order is discretionary. To hold the request for preliminary examination in abeyance for almost a month, as the judge did here, was a palpable abuse of the mandatory provision. His denial of a motion for a preliminary examination after indictment under these circumstances constitutes an abuse of discretion. The application before us reflects 'what may not but could well be a design to contravene positive law and deny re-lators’ rights. I believe that these particular relators are entitled to a preliminary examination although its conduct and scope may be limited under C.Cr.P. Art. 296. I respectfully dissent from the refusal to grant the writs.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANNETTE BURRUS

,

Appellant,

v.

D AVID REYES AND SONIA

VALENZUELA

,

Appellee ’ s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 4

- 00265

- CV

Appeal from the

346 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2012

- DCV03532 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter ’ s second request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter ’ s Record until February 12 , 201 5

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER ’ S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Jason P. Mestas , Court Reporter for the 346 th District Court

,

for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter ’ s Rec ord for the above styled and numbered

cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before Februa ry 12, 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th day of January , 201 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### Mrs. Janie Poe WOOD v. LAMAR LIFE INSURANCE CO.

No. 45552.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 22, 1969.

William S. Lawson, Tupelo, for appellant.

Mitchell, Rogers & Eskridge, Tupelo, Wells, Wells, Marble & Hurst, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25196]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 10, 1997.

Place: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-25196 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
256 La. 66

#### Kelly MURPHY v. George C. MESSENGER et al.

No. 50530.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Kelly Murphy applying for certio-rari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchi-toches. 233 So.2d 615.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

McCALEB, and BARHAM, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be denied since it presents only questions of fact adversely decided to relator by both the trial and appellate court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL BEENICK, Jr., : (Judge Brann)

:

Plaintiff, : No. 4:14-cv-01562

:

v. :

:

MICHAEL LeFEBVRE, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

May 14, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

14) regarding the disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 10) is adopted in part and rejected in 

part.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Counts I, II, 

III, and IV.

3. Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is denied at this stage in the 

proceeding, although Defendants may reassert the defense at a later 

stage.

Case 4:14-cv-01562-MWB Document 18 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 2
4. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is dismissed without 

prejudice, with leave to amend to assert a need for future relief.

5. The case is remanded to Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson for 

assignment to a Magistrate Judge.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-01562-MWB Document 18 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2
STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 942849 Room 4112 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0056 (916) 319-2056 FAX (916) 319-2156

May 7, 2014 Secretary Anthony Foxx

# ~sstmhllJ 

# <1lalifnrnia**~tgislafurt** V. MANUEL PEREZ ASSEMBL YMEMBER, FIFTY-SIXTH DISTRICT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket DOT-OST-2008-0299 Dear Secretary Foxx, STANDING COMiVIITEES: Government Organization Insurance Jobs, Economic Development & the Economy Revenue and Taxation

···: j·····

,<'""".

I write to express my concerns with the Department ofTransportation's Tentative Order to terminate the Essential Air Service (EAS) program inEl Centro, California located in Imperial County. I urge youto consider the negative economic impacts that may occur as a result ofthe proposedtermination ofthe program. The Imperial County Airport has a remarkable track record ofsurpassing the EAS program requirements put forth by the government, as they have dramatically exceededthe enplanement minimum in four ofthe last five fiscal years. The one exception is FY 2013, when Imperial County Airport felljust slightly belowthe ten enplanementthreshold, achieveing 9.5 enplanements. As you know, the EAS program was put into place to guarantee that small communities, including those within Imperial County, continue to be served by certificated air carriers. Overthe last several years, Imperial County has experienced the highest unemployment rate inthe nation. The EAS program supports local economic activity and growth, which ourregion needs more than ever. As youprepare the Final Order, I urge youto consider the Imperial Valley's solid track record over the last three fiscal years, and I ask that you consider the devastating voidthat will be left shouldthe Department ofTransportation decide to terminate the much-needed EAS program at the Imperial County Airport. Should youhave any questions, please feel free to contact my Senior Representative BiankaVelez inmyEl Centro office at 760-336-8912. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,



## \/ /;J _) // 

# v**~-** 

# . f(Ji>l
V. MANUEL PEREZ Assemblymember, 56th District DISTRICT OFFICES RIVERSIDE COUNTY 45-677 Oasis St., Indio, CA 92201 (760)342-8047 I FAX (760) 347-8704 IMPERIAL COUNTY 1625 W. Main St, #220, El Centro, CA 92243 (760) 336-8912/ FAX (760) 336-8914
#### Ralph RUSSELL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-468.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I.. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, the present sentence does not specify the amount of credit for time served as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975) requires. *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Therefore, we remand the case for correction of sentence, and appellant need not be present at that time.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3and related prospectuses (Registration Nos. 333-115316, 333-108380,333-91548, 333-64732 and 333-60076) and on Form S-8(Registration Nos. 333-116276, 333-91544, 333-64166, 333-90489,and 333-42803) of VCampus Corporation of our report dated March 14,2003 with respect to the 2002 financial statements and schedule of VCampusCorporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).
| /s/ ERNST &  YOUNG, LLP |
|----------------------------------|
| McLean, Virginia                 |
| March 29, 2005              |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001076534
<NAME> ROANOKE TECHNOLOGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          36,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,911
<PP&E>                                         254,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 469,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,133
<OTHER-SE>                                     362,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   469,604
<SALES>                                        421,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               421,248
<CGS>                                          250,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  250,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               263,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (92,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (92,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.008)


</TABLE>
254 La. 916

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Wade RICKS, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50235.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1969.

In re: Wade Ricks, Jr. applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Not considered. See Rule XII of the rules of this Court.