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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OF REGISTRANT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF REGISTRANT FOR
THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000034489
<NAME> WESTMINSTER CAPITAL
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         694,000
<SECURITIES>                                20,817,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,604,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,812,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 877,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,908,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,835,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,128,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,908,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,624,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,098,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,526,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   625,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            877,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   877,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Victor SWINNEN v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden.

No. 61237.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Victor Swinnen applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Rapides.

Denied.
Case 8:12-cv-00182-JDW-EAJ Document 3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 64

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRI~T OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 8:12-cv-00182-T-27EAJ 

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

----------------------------~/ 

ORDER 

BEFORE THE COURT is the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (Dkt. 2). Upon 

consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

(1) The Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED. The Court 

will separately enter the Consent Decree. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this 31 ~ay of January, 2012. 

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRI(:T OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 8:12-cv-00182-T-27EAJ 

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

--~------------------------~I 

ORDER 

BEFORE THE COURT is the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (Dkt. 2). Upon 

consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 

(1) The Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED. The Court 

will separately enter the Consent Decree. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this 3 I 'fay of January, 2012. 

~," ... ~S D. WHITTEMORE 

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record
EXHIBIT 99.3

                           DECORATOR INDUSTRIES, INC.
                    CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SS.1350




                                  CERTIFICATION

As required by 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, the undersigned certify that this Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



Date: May 12, 2003          By: /s/  William A. Bassett
                                ------------------------
                                     William A. Bassett, Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 12, 2003          By: /s/  Michael K. Solomon
                                ------------------------
                                     Michael K. Solomon, Treasurer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman 

J. Thomas Rosch 

Edith Ramirez 

Julie Brill 

In the Matter of 

McWANE, INC., 

 a corporation, and Docket No. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

 a limited partnership. 

ORDER WITHDRAWING MATTER FROM ADJUDICATION AS TO
 

RESPONDENT STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., FOR THE PURPOSE
 

OF CONSIDERING A PROPOSED CONSENT AGREEMENT
 

Complaint Counsel and Respondent Star Pipe Products, Ltd. (“Respondent Star”) having 

jointly moved for Respondent Star to be withdrawn from adjudication in this matter in order to 

enable the Commission to consider a proposed Consent Agreement; and 

Complaint Counsel and Respondent Star having submitted a proposed Consent 

Agreement containing a proposed Decision and Order, executed by Respondent Star and by 

Complaint Counsel and approved by the Director of the Bureau of Competition that, if accepted 

by the Commission, would resolve the claims against Respondent Star in their entirety; 

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 

16 C.F.R. § 3.25(c), that all claims against Respondent Star, as set forth in the First Violation 

Alleged and the Second Violation Alleged in the Complaint, be, and they hereby are, withdrawn 

in their entirety from adjudication until 12:01 a.m. on March 31, 2012, and that all proceedings 

against Respondent Star before the Administrative Law Judge be, and they hereby are, stayed 

pending a determination by the Commission with respect to the proposed Consent Agreement, 

pursuant to Rule 3.25(f), 16 C.F.R. § 3.25(f); and 

1
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(b) of the Commission Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.25(b), that the proposed Consent Agreement shall not be placed on the 

public record unless and until it is accepted by the Commission; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(e) of the Commission Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.25(e), that this matter shall remain in an adjudicative status as to 

Respondent McWane, Inc. (“Respondent McWane”), and all claims against Respondent 

McWane in the Complaint, including but not limited to those set forth in the First, Second, 

Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Violations Alleged in the Complaint, shall remain in an 

adjudicative status. 

By the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

SEAL: 

ISSUED: February 23, 2012 

2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7644 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of risk and 

needs assessment tools in juvenile incarceration decisions, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2020 

Mr. LEWIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use 

of risk and needs assessment tools in juvenile incarceration decisions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Juvenile Incarceration 

5 Reduction Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter D of chapter 229 of 

8 part II of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

9 adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7644 IH

1 ‘‘§ 3636. Limited application to juveniles 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of juveniles, the risk 

3 and needs assessment system developed under this sub4 chapter may not be used— 

5 ‘‘(1) to determine whether a juvenile may be 

6 proceeded against as an adult or whether it is in the 

7 interest of justice to proceed against a juvenile as an 

8 adult under section 5032; 

9 ‘‘(2) to determine the recidivism risk of a juve10 nile charged with any nonviolent offense, or as the 

11 sole factor to determine the recidivism risk of a juve12 nile who has committed an act of juvenile delin13 quency which if committed by an adult would be a 

14 felony offense; 

15 ‘‘(3) to determine whether a juvenile is to be 

16 taken into custody for an alleged act of juvenile de17 linquency prior to being adjudicated delinquent pur18 suant to chapter 403; or 

19 ‘‘(4) to establish, without additional evidence, a 

20 juvenile’s eligibility for a recidivism reduction pro21 gram or likelihood of benefitting from a recidivism 

22 reduction program. 

23 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON USE OF RISK AND NEEDS AS24 SESSMENT SYSTEM EVIDENCE.—In the case that a risk 

25 and needs assessment system is used to determine the re26 cidivism risk of a juvenile who has committed an act of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7644 IH

1 juvenile delinquency which if committed by an adult would 

2 be considered a felony offense, evidence established by the 

3 system is inadmissible as evidence to establish that a juve4 nile committed the act of juvenile delinquency for which 

5 the juvenile is being charged.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 for subchapter D of chapter 229 of title 18, United States 

8 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘3636. Limited application to juveniles.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


                           Certification of CFO Pursuant to
                               18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                                As Adopted Pursuant to
                       Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Farmers Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Pierre Wauthier,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
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.

/s/    Pierre Wauthier
----------------------
Pierre Wauthier
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003


This certification is being furnished to accompany this Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                             4,608
<SECURITIES>                      30,901
<RECEIVABLES>                     34,674
<ALLOWANCES>                       3,272
<INVENTORY>                       13,288
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  55,289
<PP&E>                             9,928
<DEPRECIATION>                     5,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    90,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             14,503
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                              87
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                        75,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      90,115
<SALES>                           79,727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  79,727
<CGS>                             38,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     70,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   10,186
<INCOME-TAX>                       3,324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                6,862
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       6,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.75


</TABLE>
Exhibit1036-Salaries




Exhibit 10.36 
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers 
Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by SunEdison, Inc. (the “Company”) to the executive officers to be named in the Company’s 2014 annual proxy statement who are not covered by current employment agreements, as of the date of filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 10-K”) and are continuing as an executive officer of the Company as of February 15, 2014. None of the below executive officers has an employment agreement with the Company.  Each of these executive officers is an employee at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors  
Base Salaries. These executive officers currently receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below: 
 
	
		
	 
	 

	Name and Position
 
	2013 Base Salary 
Amount 
 

	Brian Wuebbels, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer   
	$424,000

	Carlos Domenech, Executive Vice President; President-Solar Energy
	$500,000

	Shaker Sadasivam, Executive Vice President; President—Semiconductor Materials   
	$437,100

	Dave Ranhoff, Senior Vice President, Solar Materials
	$381,900




The Compensation Committee adjusts these base salaries from time to time as the Committee deems appropriate each year, generally annually.  The Committee reviews and discusses the written performance appraisal for each executive officer with the Chief Executive Officer. The above information reflects the base salaries for our named executive officers approved by the Committee in February 2013.  
Incentive Awards. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company’s incentive compensation plans as provided in the terms of such plans, including the Company’s short term incentive awards plan (which provides for cash incentive awards) and the Company’s long-term incentive awards plan (e.g., the Company’s 2001 Equity Incentive Plan and 2010 Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan). Such plans, and any forms of awards thereunder providing for material terms, are included as exhibits to the Form 10-K as appropriate. 
Pension Plan. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company Pension Plan on the same terms as the Company’s other covered employees. Because he commenced employment after December 31, 2001, Messrs. Wuebbels, Domenech and Ranhoff are not covered by the SunEdison Pension Plan.
Relocation Payments. From time to time the Company makes payments to executive officers to cover relocation expenses.
258 La. 359

#### JACKSON-HINDS BANK v. Wallace M. DAVIS, Jr.

No. 51302.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Jackson-Hinds Bank applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 244 So.2d 633.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
(March 12, 2001)

#### In the Matter of Richard H. Brown, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[722 NYS2d 94]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1977. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County.

On February 2, 2001, respondent pleaded guilty in Schenectady County Court to grand larceny in the fourth degree, a class E felony *{see,*Penal Law § 155.30 [4]), and attempted forgery in the second degree, a class E felony *{see,*Penal Law §§ 110.05, 170.10 [1]). He was sentenced to six months in jail and five years’ probation with terms and conditions requiring that he make restitution. Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a), an attorney convicted of any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this State shall, upon such conviction, cease to be an attorney or be competent to practice law as such. For attorney discipline purposes, respondent was convicted of a felony upon his plea of guilty *(see, e.g., Matter of Etkin,*271 AD2d 749; *Matter of Russell,*216 AD2d 790).

We therefore grant petitioner’s unopposed motion to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and disbar respondent, effective immediately.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is *746further ordered that respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and he is disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules *(see,*22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys.
ë"intf 11P.~~ ~ f¡ fU ,f\\ ~ (__-it tg ~ Ü \8 S~li ~,:~ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERA TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIV LAW JUDGES 

)
 In the Matter of
 )
 

)


POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Docket No. 9327
 

Respondent.
 ) 

) 

ORDER GRATING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On March 23,2009, Respondent submitted a motion requesting a modification of the 

Scheduling Order, as amended by Order dated February 4, 2009 ("Amended Scheduling Order"). 

Respondent seeks to extend by one week certain dates relating to Respondent's expert, Dr. Mark 

Stevenson. Respondent has demonstrated good cause for seeking this extension. Respondent 

represents that Complaint Counsel does not oppose the one-week extensions requested by 

Respondent. 

Respondent's motion is GRANTED. 

It is hereby ORDERED that: (a) the March 20,2009 deadline to provide the expert 

witness report of 
 Dr. Stevenson be extended through March 27,2009; (b) the March 27,2009 

deadline for Complaint Counsel to identify rebuttal experts and provide expert reports in 

response to the expert report of Dr. Stevenson be extended through April 3, 2009; (c) the April 
 3, 

2009 deadline for the expert deposition of Dr. Stevenson (and the deposition(s) of rebuttal 

experts, if any, identified by Complaint Counsel in response to Dr. Stevenson's expert report) be 

extended through April 10, 2009; and (d) the April 6, 2009 deadline for filing motions in limine 

and motions to strke, only as such motions relate to the expert report or deposition of 

Dr. Stevenson or to corresponding rebuttal evidence, be extended through April 
 13, 2009. 

All other dates in the Amended Scheduling Order, including deadlines relating to experts 

other than Dr. Stevenson, and the hearng date, remain unaffected. 

ORDERED: :p hi ~#

D. Michael Chapp i 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: March 24, 2009
#### Izell Willie JACOBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-727.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
255 La. 154

#### CITY OF HOUMA v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.

No. 50266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: City of Houma applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. The applicant will have an adequate remedy for a review of the errors complained of in the event of an adverse judgment on the merits.
Exhibit 10.28

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this “Amendment No. 2”) is made by and between Memory Lane, Inc. (formerly Classmates Online, Inc.), a Washington corporation (the “Company”), and Harold Alan Zeitz (the “Employee”), effective as of July 29, 2013.

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement on January 14, 2011, as amended by the Amendment dated as of January 25, 2013 (as amended, the “Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

 

1.             Section 1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “February 15, 2014” and replacing it with “February 15, 2015”.

 

2.             Except as modified by this Amendment No. 2, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this Amendment No. 2, in the case of the Company by a duly authorized officer, as of the date stated in the opening paragraph.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
MEMORY   LANE, INC.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
By:
    	
Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
EMPLOYEE
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Harold Alan Zeitz
    	
 
    	
Date: 7/24/13
    
	
Harold Alan Zeitz
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ' 

In the Matter of 

McWANE, INC., 

a corporation, and 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited partnership, 

Respondents. , 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET NO. 9351 

ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

By Order dated February 3,2012, the Scheduling Conference was scheduled to be 

held on February 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. By correspondence submitted on February 3, 

2012, Respondent Star Pipe Products, Ltd. requested that the date of the Scheduling 

Conference be rescheduled. The request was unopposed. 

The Scheduling Conference is hereby rescheduled to February 13,2012 at 2:00 

p.m. in Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 

ORDERED: 

Date: February 7, 2012 

02 07 2012
 02 07 2012