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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE AND
NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                    25,004
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,990,691
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,126,774)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,715,627
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,517,477
<PP&E>                                       2,458,441
<DEPRECIATION>                               (495,223)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,602,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,278,232
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,031
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,240,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,602,407
<SALES>                                     27,324,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,324,349
<CGS>                                       24,960,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,960,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               392,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             504,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,607,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,607,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,607,171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
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 Hollywood Entertainment Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of their 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/Mark J. Wattles                      /s/James A. Marcum
-----------------------------           ---------------------------
Mark J. Wattles				James A. Marcum
Chairman, President and Chief 	        Executive Vice President
Executive Officer			and Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  March 27, 2003
PUBLIC LAW 104–76—DEC. 28, 1995 109 STAT. 787

Public Law 104–76

104th Congress

An Act

To amend the Fair Housing Act to modify the exemption from certain familial

status discrimination prohibitions granted to housing for older persons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing for Older Persons

Act of 1995’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS.

Section 807(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

3607(b)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(C) intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55

years of age or older, and—

‘‘(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or

older;

‘‘(ii) the housing facility or community publishes and

adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the

intent required under this subparagraph; and

‘‘(iii) the housing facility or community complies with

rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy,

which shall—

‘‘(I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and

affidavits; and

‘‘(II) include examples of the types of policies and

procedures relevant to a determination of compliance

with the requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and

affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and

judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification.’’.

SEC. 3. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT AT COMPLIANCE; DEFENSE AGAINST

CIVIL MONEY DAMAGES.

Section 807(b) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b))

is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(5)(A) A person shall not be held personally liable for monetary

damages for a violation of this title if such person reasonably

relied, in good faith, on the application of the exemption under

this subsection relating to housing for older persons.

‘‘(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may only

show good faith reliance on the application of the exemption by

showing that—

46 USC 3601

note.

Housing for

Older Persons

Act of 1995.

Dec. 28, 1995

[H.R. 660]

109 STAT. 788 PUBLIC LAW 104–76—DEC. 28, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 660:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–91 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 104–172 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Apr. 6, considered and passed House.

Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Dec. 18, House concurred in Senate amendment.

Æ

‘‘(i) such person has no actual knowledge that the facility

or community is not, or will not be, eligible for such exemption;

and

‘‘(ii) the facility or community has stated formally, in writing, that the facility or community complies with the requirements for such exemption.’’.

Approved December 28, 1995.
Exhibit 10.11

Translated From Japan

                   Special Overdraft Facility Change Agreement

                                                                       2007/7/27

Mitsui Sumitomo KK

Principal                  Address:   Nishi Shinjuku Showa Bldg 11F
                                      1-13-12 Nishi Shinjuku
                                      Shinjuku- ku Tokyo
                           Name:      Representative Director
                                      Hideki Anan

Joint Guarantor            Address:   3-13-10 Yoyogi
                                      Shibuya-ku Tokyo
                           Name:      Hideki Anan

Principal (hereinafter referred to as A) shall change the details of Special
Overdraft Facility Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) which
was entered into with Mitsui Sumitomo KK on 2006/7/31.

Except the change written below, each party shall follow conditions of the
Agreement. Joint Guarantor shall guarantee maximum amount of a debt in the
present and the future jointly and severally based on the Agreement and the
Change Agreement.

In case the term of an agreement is postponed based on the Change Agreement,
guarantee date will be the following day of the term of the contract after
changing.

Item                            Before Change          After Change
----                            -------------          ------------

The term of a contract          2007/7/27              2008/7/25

Interest rate after change regarding the present overdraft will be applied from
the following date of the first interest payment due date after entering into
the Change Agreement.

                                     - 1 -
Opinion issued September 18 , 2014 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00380
- CV

——————————— MABEL NEBO GIBSON , Appellant

V. EKTO HOLDINGS TRUSTE E OF 17330 BARONSHIR E

TRUST UDT 6/25/13 , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1045664

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mabel Nebo Gibson , has neither established indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R.2

A PP
. P. 20.1, 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. Se e T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(b). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
#### J. Sandy SCATENA et al., Petitioner, v. CITY OF NAPLES, a Municipal Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40622.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 837.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Subsidiaries of the Company


     Name of Subsidiary                      State of Incorporation
     ------------------                      ----------------------
     
     Johnstown America Corporation                Delaware
     JAC Patent Corporation                       Delaware
     JAIX Leasing Company                         Delaware
     Freight Car Services, Inc.                   Delaware
     Bostrom Holdings, Inc.                       Delaware
     Bostrom Seating, Inc.                        Delaware
     Truck Components Inc.                        Delaware
     Gunite Corporation                           Delaware
     Brillion Iron Works, Inc.                    Delaware
     Fabco Automotive Corporation                 Delaware
     JAII Management Company                      Delaware

     *  All subsidiaries are 100% owned by the specified entity
#### Leroy MUNLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 9, 1971.

Leroy Munlin, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

*108Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26786]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 95-174; FCC 96-86]


Uniform Cable Price-Setting Methodology

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission's amendments to 47 CFR 76.922, which contain 
information collection requirements, became effective on September 4, 
1997. These amendments, which were published in the Federal Register on 
March 31, 1997, relate to implementation of the rate regulation 
provisions of the 1992 Cable Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments to 47 CFR 76.922 published at 62 FR 
15127 became effective on September 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Fream, Cable Services Bureau, 
(202) 418-7200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. On March 14, 1997, the Commission released a Report and Order, a 
summary of which was published in the Federal Register. See 62 FR 
15121, March 31, 1997. The Report and Order establishes rules for an 
optional rate-setting methodology that would enable a cable operator to 
establish uniform rates for uniform cable service tiers offered in 
multiple franchise areas. Because the rules imposed new information 
collection requirements, the amendments to 47 CFR 76.922 could not 
become effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB''), and no sooner than April 30, 1997. OMB approved these rule 
changes on September 4, 1997.
    2. The Federal Register summary stated that the Commission would 
publish a document announcing the effective date of the rule changes 
requiring OMB approval. The amendments to 47 CFR 76.922 became 
effective on September 4, 1997. This publication satisfies the 
statement that the Commission would publish a document announcing the 
effective date of the rule changes requiring OMB approval.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26786 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JERMAINE T. MCCALEBB, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-28 Erie

v. )

)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE ) 

COUNTY OF ERIE, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on February 8,

2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10], filed on

August 15, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed and that a

certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and

on Respondents. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the petition and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 15, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00028-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:04-cv-00349-MBC-SPB   Document 22   Filed 07/25/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00349-MBC-SPB   Document 22   Filed 07/25/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2014-03-11T06:29:43-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  June      10, 2008 | By:  /s/ Paul B. Toms,      Jr.                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |                  Paul B.      Toms, Jr.                    |
|                                |             Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer |
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (1) | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended                December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                78m or 78o(d)); and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |                                                                                         |                           |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                              |
|        |                                                                                              | /s/                Yossi Attia |
|   | Name:                Yossi Attia                                                             |
|   | Title:                Chief Executive Officer and Principal                Financial Officer |

----
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of    our company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of our company.     /s/ Jack R. Maurer           Jack R. Maurer *Chief Executive Officer*Date: August 22, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral information language in such filing.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Argued September 18, 2013

Decided September 20, 2013

Before

     WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

     RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

     JOHN DANIEL TINDER Circuit Judge

No. 13‐1432  

MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS

LIMITED,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

CANNON AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellants.

   

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 139

Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.

O R D E R

The plaintiff sued the defendants, affiliated U.K. companies that we’ll call

Cannon, under the alienage branch of diversity jurisdiction, in 2008, charging breach of

contract and related wrongs. The primary defendant is Cannon Automotive Limited,

the company with which MacNeil had its contract; but the plaintiffs contend that the

two Cannon affiliates that are the other defendants will, if MacNeil obtains a judgment

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Page 2 No. 13‐1432

that Cannon Automotive can’t pay, be liable under veil‐piercing or related doctrines of

derivative liability of affiliates of a primary defendant.

Recently the defendants brought suit against MacNeil in a U.K. court, seeking a

declaration that the affiliates will not be liable for any judgment that MacNeil may

obtain against Cannon Automotive in the present suit. The district court issued a

preliminary injunction against proceedings in the U.K. suit, and the three Cannon

companies have appealed.

At argument we suggested to counsel that proceedings, whether in the U.K. or in

the federal district court in Chicago, concerned with the potential liability of the

affiliates, were premature. If MacNeil obtains no judgment, the liability of the affiliates

will be moot. So too if MacNeil obtains a judgment that Cannon Automotive can pay. If

MacNeil obtains a judgment and Cannon Automotive cannot pay it, MacNeil will

doubtless commence collection proceedings of some sort against the affiliates. To

commence those proceedings, whether in the U.K. or in the United States, before the

district court renders a judgment on the merits would therefore be premature, and

should be postponed until such a judgment is rendered.

Counsel for both parties agreed with our suggestion. We therefore affirm the

district court, emphasizing however that the injunction it issued is merely preliminary,

and will have to be reexamined when and if the case moves into the collection stage.

But in accordance with the parties’ agreement, we direct the district judge to postpone

proceedings in its court against the Cannon affiliates until final judgment is rendered on

the claims against Cannon Automotive. Whether discovery relating to collection should

be allowed before then we leave to the discretion of the district court. We also urge the

court to expedite the litigation, which has made little progress in the five years since it

was commenced.

AFFIRMED.