alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 

. . . 

~0~2 i4tt~fetkd8, hpwipart,ur03.w8: 

: 
@5h4 4OIUJMt&MtiOIl-~tEti~8 EdEtUism8 her&n rir6a ahall also &gplr to all rt46s md oom~tics rhltsouv4r 0oU40t4d . 

br seid OrfiOW8 ia their ufiioid oqaoity, 

uhsther aowuntable a8 rW8 or off144 unilor 

tti ~484llt, and w hf, &BkIePti gL" rprMh& 

hereby tUpJBJ884 reman6 ttbmaotar or ooiape8#m8I @X44@ iroar the ptWi8iCU8 Or thi8 

Aot 8b0.1 b8 rW4d8 nOsiY4d br Sh4Siff8 

rOr 4pQdWR8i4tt Or O- w 

Y 

tiV68 

Irma jUOtiQ4 UtdrOr th0 ?4OOVOX7 0 8%014a 

pl?opokty, anh Wnefr &WOOiVOb. by OOtUStf au48 

Ed JUOtiO48 Or th0 PWIOI) rOT pt3rf~ 

m8rrTf4go 0 orwonfer, whloh mm @ill not be 

woountablo rot End slot required to bo r8- 

pWt4d a8 r448 Or OrflW.’ 

hS%iOh 668%e BOri86d civil statut48# roads 

U rOuW81 

"Whoa any porrca other than a duWr, 

84118 4"rehiol4 8ubjWt to rogistratian 
- . 

Trwtia that 

qulrf, wo ream %I
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel. George G. ROBINSON, Sr., Relator, v. Honorable Carl C. DURRANCE, as duly appointed Judge of the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-131.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1970.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### Charles Maxwell HAYES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-568.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 30, 1969.

Charles Maxwell Hayes, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL 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 filed his response 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.
#### Michael ADRIAN and Sylvia Edith Locking, Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a public corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-805.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 2, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                           1,716
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                       408
<INVENTORY>                                     24,707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,520
<PP&E>                                          41,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,146
<SALES>                                         82,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,153
<CGS>                                           58,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (49)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,016
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                     938
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,859
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
Docket No . F AA

- 2015

- 1199
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,
in his capacity as an officer of KSwiss Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 4, 2009



|                      |  |                                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Steven Nichols
|Name:                 |  | Steven Nichols                                                                     
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                              
|                     
|/s/    George Powlick
|Name:                 |  | George Powlick                                                                     
|Title:                |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORIGINAL 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

McW ANE, INC., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

) DOCKET NO. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited partnership, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER CLOSING HEARING RECORD 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3 .44( c), the hearing record is hereby closed. Corrections to 

the record may stil be made, if 
 necessary, pursuant to Commission Rule 3.44(b). 

ORDERED: .) Vb C~RlÁ 

D. Michael Ch;p ..
 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 7,2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          72,883
<SECURITIES>                                     1,775
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,046
<PP&E>                                          42,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 318,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              234
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   318,121
<SALES>                                        115,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,902
<CGS>                                           88,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,527
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,127
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,127
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3059130-APR-201210:39 AM
254 La. 862

#### E. E. RABALAIS & SON, INC. v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50165.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: E. E. Rabalais & Son, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 226 So.2d 528.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted. In his opinion, the bond contract obligates the bonding company to pay attorney’s fees. See Jennings v. Ralston Purina Company, La.App., 201 So.2d 168, cert. den. 251 La. 215, 203 So.2d 554.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs in the denial of the writ. The majority opinion in regard to attorney’s fees is in accord with prior Supreme Court decisions not cited. Chauvin v. LaHitte, 229 La. 94, 85 So.2d 43, and cases cited therein. Further, even if there were merit in a reconsideration and overruling of this jurisprudence so as to hold that broad and general language such as “all costs and damage” includes attorney’s fees, the issue is not presented in this case. The failure of the defendant bonding company as surety to pay the obligee-plaintiff without suit was its own fault and not a “default” of the subcontractor-principal. The obligation of the defendant-surety is to “repay the obligee (plaintiff) all outlay and expenses which the obligee may incur in making good any such default (of the principal-subcontractor).” Obligee-plaintiff has made good the default of the subcontractor principal without incurring any attorney’s fees, and it is suing the surety for the amount of that default. Under no possible extension of “all costs and damage” can obligor be held indebted for plaintiff’s attorney’s fees incurred in suit against it, the surety.

SYSTEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.,
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY,

a corporation, Docket No. 9300
and

PITT-DES-MOINES, INC.,

a corporation.

SSeS SEH HHH HE

RESPONDENTS’ NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ITS MOTION TO CALL CERTAIN
WITNESSES BY DEPOSITION

Respondents filed a Motion to Call Certain Witnesses by Deposition on
November 1, 2002. Respondents and Complaint Counsel have since reached an agreement
resolving and disposing of the issues set forth in the Motion. Accordingly, Respondents hereby

withdraw their November 1, 2002 Motion to Call Certain Witnesses by Deposition.

Dated: November 7, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

Greg J. Miarecki
Winston & Strawn

35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703
(312) 558-5600 (voice)



(312) 558-5700 (fax)
dkelley@winston.com
jleon@winston.com
gmiareck@winston.com

Nada S. Sulaiman
Winston & Strawn

1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 371-5700 (voice)
(202) 371-5950 (fax)
nsulaima@winston.com

Counsel for Respondents
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
and Pitt Des-Moines, Inc.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nada S. Sulaiman, hereby certify that on this 7th day of November, 2002, I
served a true and correct copy of Respondents' Notice of Withdrawal of Its Motion to Call

Certain Witnesses by Deposition, by hand delivery upon:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

(two copies)

Secretary of the Commission
Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room H-159

Washington, D.C. 20580

and by fax and hand delivery upon:

Rhett R. Krulla

Acting Assistant Director
Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room S-3602

Washington, D.C. 20580

Steven L. Wilensky
Federal Trade Commission
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Room S-3618

Washington, D.C. 20580
Nada. Salama
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-03-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                       970
<INVENTORY>                                     81,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,126
<PP&E>                                          64,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,793
<BONDS>                                          1,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,026
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,085
<SALES>                                        196,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,965
<CGS>                                          144,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (931)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,784)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                853
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       853
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
ORlG\NAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc. ) 

a corporation. ) PUBLIC ) 

ERRATA SHEET 

This is an Errata Sheet to Complaint Counsel's Post-Trial Brief 
 filed on July 10,2009. 

Page No. Line	 Corrections 

73 2	 change from "(Paragraph II.F.4)". to "(Paragraph II.F.3)". 

74 9	 change from "Paragraph VI" to "Paragraph VII" 

74 12	 change from "alternative suppliers. These provisions..." 

to "alternative suppliers (Paragraph VII). These provisions..." 

74 19	 change from "Paragraph VII" to "Paragraph VI" 

75 11	 change from "Paragraph VII" to "Paragraph IX" 

Dated: July 14, 2009	 Respectfully Submitted 

~W~/5t

í/obert Robertson
 

Complaint Counsel
 

Federal Trade Commission 

Bureau of Competition 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, Nw 

Washington, Dc 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2008 

Fax: (202) 326-2884 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 14,2009, I fied via hand delivery an original and two copies 

of the foregoing Errata Sheet with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretar 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on July 14,2009, I served via electronic and interoffice mail two 

copies of the foregoing Errata Sheet with: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, H- 106 

Washington, DC 20580 

oali (gftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on July 14,2009, I served via electronic mail delivery and express 

mail two copies of the foregoing Errata Sheet with: 

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, Nort Carolina 28202 

wiliamrikard (g parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh (gparkerpoe.com 

Linda Cunningh 

Federal Trade Co 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2638 

1cunningham (g ftc. gov
#### Elizabeth K. S. DOWDA, Appellant, v. Thomas Butler DOWDA, Appellee.

No. L-146.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 12, 1969.

Philip Barton and Edward L. Bush, Gainesville, for appellant.

Edward E. Hedstrom, of Dowda, Milli-can & Miller, Palatka, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant wife has appealed a final judgment granting plaintiff husband a divorce on the ground of habitual intemperance, habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper, and extreme cruelty. The sole point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principles that the judgment of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Defendant suffered default judgment to be entered against her and offered no evidence upon the issues raised by the complaint. The record reveals substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court on at least one if not all of the grounds for divorce alleged in the complaint.

It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence establishes that the conclusions reached are erroneous.1 Appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

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

1

. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe, (Fla.App.1961) 125 So. 2d 310.
----

----

EXHIBIT (32)(b)

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                |   |                                              |   |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: July 28, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Donna L. Belusar                         |   |
|                |   | Donna L. Belusar                                  |   |
|                |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                |   |                                              |   |
#### Jerry T. TUBBS, d/b/a Florida Diesel Engine Service, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DIESEL & MARINE SERVICE, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 31, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Farmers Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1996 and the related consolidated statements of income, 
stockholder's equity and cash flows for the nine month period ended 
September 30, 1996 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference 
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         670,520
<SECURITIES>                                   121,938
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               955,825
<PP&E>                                         491,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 149,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,755,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,873
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,594,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,755,244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,515,789
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  833,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                650,947
<INCOME-TAX>                                   250,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            400,576
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   400,576
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>