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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                       224
<INVENTORY>                                     24,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,892
<PP&E>                                          31,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,585
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,484
<BONDS>                                         13,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,470
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,520
<SALES>                                         28,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,944
<CGS>                                           16,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    566
<INCOME-TAX>                                       238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                328
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       328
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**A. GADLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A**

**YOUNG ENVIRONMENT LEARNING**
**CENTER,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF** 

**UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION**
**TAX SERVICES,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 52 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 2nd day of August, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RODERICK W. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-7855 EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents-Appellees. On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. (S. Ct. No. 99-6233) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999 Decided on Remand: May 31, 2000 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELRoderick W. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: This case appears before this court for the second time pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court vacating our prior judgment and remanding for further consideration in light of the Court's decision in Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000). See Miller v. Kaloroumakis , 120 S. Ct. 1239 (2000). B ecause the analysis prescribed by Roeis highly fact-specific, we conclude that it should be performed by the district court in the first instance. Accordingly,we grant a certificate of appealability as to Miller's claims of ineffective assistance relating to counsel's failure to consult with his client and inquire as to the need for an appeal, and his related claim that this ineffective assistance provided cause for Miller's failure to timely raise his numerous claims of trial court error on appeal, vacate the portions of the district court's order relating to these issues, and remand for further consideration in light of Roe . Because our priordismissal of Miller's remaining ineffective assistance claims falls outside the scope of the Supreme Court's remand, we again deny a certificate of appealability as to those claims and dismiss Miller's appeal of those claims. See Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. , 206 F.3d 431, 437 (4th Cir. 2000). We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
2
<PAGE>   1
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


                KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Matthew J. Rider, a
member of the Board of Directors of ML Life Insurance Company of New York (the
"Company"), whose signature appears below, constitutes and appoints Barry G.
Skolnick and Michael P. Cogswell, respectively, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign any and all Registration Statements and Amendments thereto,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, under the Investment Company Act of 1940, where
applicable, and the Securities Act of 1933, respectively, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, for the purpose of registering any and all variable
life and variable annuity separate accounts (collectively "Separate Accounts"),
of the Company that may be established in connection with the issuance of any
and all variable life and variable annuity contracts funded by such Separate
Accounts, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, and each of them, full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done.



                Date: 10/10/00          /s/ MATTHEW J. RIDER
                                        -----------------------------
                                            Matthew J. Rider



State of New Jersey )
County of Mercer    )

                On the 10th day of October 2000, before me came Matthew J.
Rider, Director of ML Life Insurance Company of New York, to me known to be
said person and he signed the above Power of Attorney on behalf of ML Life
Insurance Company of New York.



                /s/ KATHERINE M. SWEETAPPLE
                -----------------------------
                     [SEAL]                         Notary Public



                           KATHERINE M. SWEETAPPLE
                         NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY
                         Commission Expires 4/21/2004
DBA SYSTEMS, INC.
EXHIBIT INDEX

					
                                                       	Page No.	

Exhibit 11 - Computation of earnings per share             10





<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 11


DBA SYSTEMS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
In thousands, except per share information 
Unaudited
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended  Six Months Ended
                                              December 31       December 31
                                              1995    1994      1995    1994
<S>                                            <C>     <C>       <C>     <C>
Net Income (A)                                $215    $275      $474    $662
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding          4,433   4,364     4,433   4,359

Incremental Shares - Stock Options              45      76        53      48
Subtotal (B)                                 4,478   4,440     4,486   4,407	
	 
Incremental Shares - Stock Options              -       11        -        5
Total (C)                                    4,478   4,451     4,486   4,412	 



Net Earnings per Common and Common
	Equivalent Share (A/B)                      $ .05    $.06       $.11   $.15	 


Net Earnings per common share, Assuming 
	Full Dilution (Cannot be  	
	Antidilutive) (A/C)                         $ .05    $.06       $.11    $.09	

</TABLE>
10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures Fund III L.P. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                      42,644,762
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,960<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,191,101<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,191,101<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,245,317<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,298,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,946,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,946,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,946,492
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $180,960.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $6,365,379.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $666,041, accrued
management fees of $123,748 and accrued administrative expenses
payable of $65,338.
<F4>Total revenues includes realized trading revenue of $6,754,178,
net change in unrealized of $4,405,551 and interest income of
$2,085,588.
</FN>



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Gregg L. Engles, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dean Holding Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of Dean Holding Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 4. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for DeanHolding Company and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to DeanHolding Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of Dean Holding Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the period covered by this quarterly report, based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in Dean HoldingCompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Dean Holding Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,Dean Holding Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to Dean Holding Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect Dean Holding Company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Dean Holding Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ GREGG L. ENGLES      Gregg L. Engles *Chief Executive Officer*
May 13, 2005
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

In connection with the Annual Report
of Transamerica Advisors Life Insurance Company of New York (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
A. Swank, President and Chairman of the Board 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Thomas A. SwankThomas A. SwankPresident and Chairman of the Board


Dated:
March 25, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Transamerica Advisors Life
Insurance Company of New York and will be retained by Transamerica Advisors Life Insurance Company of New York and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7537
ROBERT CHAMBERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH SUTTON, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-486-3) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. * We have reviewedthe record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Chambers v. Sutton , No. CA-95-486-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 1995). 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
#### CAMPBELL’S NATIONAL CAR LEASING, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Campbell’s National Car Rentals, Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY, Appellee.

No. 70-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1971.

Richard T. Bennison, of MacKenzie, Castagna, Bennison & Gardner; and Joseph G. Donahey, Jr., of Mosley & Donahey, Clearwater, for appellant.

Stewart C. Eggert, of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge properly enjoined appellant from soliciting car rental business at Tampa International Airport, where an exclusive contract with two other companies is in effect. Olin’s Miami Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.App.1968, 217 So.2d 144; Miami Beach Airline Service v. Crandon, 1947, 159 Fla. 504, 32 So.2d 153. But the injunction is overly specific. The appellant may *454well follow its terms without violating a general injunction against solicitation, but the terms of the temporary injunction would apparently result in confusion to travelers who have reserved cars through the National system without providing any permissible means for avoiding that confusion. Accordingly, we affirm so much of the temporary injunction as forbids solicitation, but reverse with directions to reconsider whether a specific method of operation is needed in the injunctive order. Such a specific order, if entered, should not forbid conduct reasonably necessary in order for appellant to identify and contact its customers.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                            [A.D.A.M. Software, Inc. Letterhead]

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.7


September 3, 1996

Mr. Curtis Cain
1455 Yorktown Drive
Lawrenceville, GA 30243

Dear Curtis,

       This letter will confirm our mutual understandings regarding termination
of your employment with A.D.A.M. Software, Inc. (the "Company").  The Company
hereby accepts your resignation as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
effective September 4, 1996, subject to the terms and conditions specified in
the term sheet attached to this letter.  The Company has agreed to the terms
specified in the attached term sheet, and the Board of Directors has authorized
the Company's performance of its obligations to you as specified in the term
sheet.

       As specified in the attached term sheet, the Company agrees that you have
resigned at the request of the Board of Directors, and your resignation will
therefore be treated as a "No Cause Termination Event" under your employment
agreement with the Company dated December 19, 1994.  Payment by the Company of
the amounts specified in the attached term sheet will satisfy all obligations of
the Company to you under the Employment Agreement or otherwise in connection
with your employment.

Signed,

/s/ Robert S. Cramer, Jr.

Robert S. Cramer, Jr.
Chairman of the Board

Attachment

<PAGE>   2

A.D.A.M. SOFTWARE, INC.
BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING
AUGUST 28, 1996



Term Sheet for Resolution II: Resignation of the CEO

1. Cain will resign at the request of the Board, which is defined in his
       Employment Agreement as a "No Cause Termination Event".

2.  Effective date to be September 4, 1996, which is the "Date of Termination".

3.  The following 10 year stock option grants will be forfeited:
       39,000 @ $5.00 per share dated 4/1/92
       60,000 @ $5.00 per share dated 5/1/92
       90,000 @ $8.50 per share dated 3/15/96
       189,000 Total Shares

4.  The following stock option grant will be retained by Cain:
       20,000 @ $8.00 per share dated 3/15/95

5.  Cain's Personal File shall be noted:
       a.  Employment dates were 11/17/91 to 9/4/96.
       b.  Eligible for rehire.

6.  While paragraph 4.3 (a) of his Employment Agreement states Cain will
       "continue to receive his then-current Base Salary and bonus (if earned)
       for a period of two (2) years following the date of termination", the
       Company has agreed to make a lump sum payment of $150,000 on the Date of
       Termination and then continue payments on his current Base Salary of
       $180,000 for one year (no bonus program is in effect).  Payments will be
       made monthly (i.e. $15,000 each from September 30, 1996 to August 31,
       1997) as a consultant {with 1099 reporting to the IRS at the year end}.
       ADAM will be responsible for 80% of the Cobra payments for his medical,
       dental and vision insurance until Cain obtains full-time employment, but
       not longer than 12 months.
#### MARINE NATIONAL BANK, as Executor of the Estate of William K. Bayer, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. BROWARD NATIONAL BANK OF FORT LAUDERDALE et al., Appellees. Marian R. BOYER et al., Appellants, v. BROWARD NATIONAL BANK OF FORT LAUDERDALE et al., Appellees.

Nos. 72-326, 72-344.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 16, 1973.

Sherman N. Smith, Jr., of Smith, Heath, Smith & O’Haire, Ven> Beach, Jones, Benson & Dwyer, Erie, and Coleman, Leonard, Morrison & Riddle, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants-appellees Marine National Bank, etc. and others.

Ellen S. Mills of Kirsch, Druck & Mills, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants-appellees Boyer, Leavy and Ritchey.

Thomas E. Byrd of Thomas E. Byrd and Associates, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Broward National Bank, etc.

Wynne M. Casteel, Jr., of Cabot, Scott, Wenkstern & Casteel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Auburn Research.

PER CURIAM.

These are consolidated appeals from a final judgment of the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The issues presented to the trial judge in a suit for declaratory and other relief were many and complex. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and heard oral argument. On that basis, we find no error in the final judgment and can do no better than adopt as our own the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the able trial judge, Honorable Lamar Warren.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### Hugh DORSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-190.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.