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


<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>      0000027099
<NAME>     DATATAB, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         11,071
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 200,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,165
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              212,403
<PP&E>                                        126,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                123,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                215,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         153,132
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         788,955
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      788,955
<OTHER-SE>                                   (658,410)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  215,909
<SALES>                                       394,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              415,196
<CGS>                                         378,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 499,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,368)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,368)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,368)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        




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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
MARYLAND BANCORP JUNE 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         901,001
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             234
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               229,497
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               151,737
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,600,575
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      6,839,492
<ALLOWANCE>                                    152,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,246,321
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,574,486
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,490,406
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            397,589
<LONG-TERM>                                    209,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,797
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        84,926
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,147,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,246,321
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                275,810
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               81,643
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                17,176
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               374,629
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             101,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,242
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          212,387
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   19,200
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 508
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                201,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                109,452
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      69,927
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.37
<LOANS-NON>                                     46,357
<LOANS-PAST>                                    16,731
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   117
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 32,082
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               154,802
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   23,983
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,778
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              152,797
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            77,628
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             11,282
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         63,887
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,170,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,507,665
<PP&E>                                         194,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,831,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,094,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    22,826,898
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,089,574)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,831,920
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (11,232,852)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,232,852)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,232,852)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,232,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)
        

</TABLE>
**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 accompanying Annual Report on Command Security Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Barry I. Regenstein, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.




Date:
      June 28, 2006




By: /s/
      Barry I. Regenstein


Barry
      I.
      Regenstein


President
      and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
No. 72-1186.

#### Top Vision Cable Co. of Kentucky *v.*City of Owensboro et al.

Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.
1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2727

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Ewen P. Barnett, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 14, 1996 Filed: February 20, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to making a false loan application in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2, and to conspiring to make a fraudulent loan application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, Ewen P. Barnett was sentenced to eight months imprisonment and ordered to pay $10,000 restitution. Barnett appeals only the order of restitution, arguing that the district court 1failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a) before imposing restitution, or relied upon objected-to portions of Barnett's presentence report (PSR) without resolving factual disputes as to his ability to pay restitution. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties'-2- submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court considered the necessary factors and properly exercised its discretion in imposing restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a), (d); United States v. French , 46 F.3d 710, 716 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); see also United States v. Manzer , 69 F.3d 222, 229 (8th Cir. 1995). We are satisfied that the restitution determination is supported by undisputed facts in the PSR. Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit31.1**

Quarterly CertificationsPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 

I, David W. Mann, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofFirst Financial Corporation;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4.             The small business issuer's othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and we have:

a)             designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             The small business issuer's othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer'sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)             all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

c)             any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting.

Date:November 14, 2005  

/s/ DavidW. Mann                                                    DavidW. MannChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of Advertising Practices

June 20, 2019 

Peter C. Marinello 

Director 

Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

Re: Advertising by Alo, LLC d/b/a Alo Yoga 

Dear Mr. Marinello: 

The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program referred to the Federal Trade 

Commission an ERSP compliance investigation involving online and social media advertising by 

Alo, LLC d/b/a Alo Yoga (“Alo Yoga”). Your referral indicated that ERSP identified 

endorsement claims on Instagram by Alo Yoga “ambassadors” who received free products or 

other consideration but failed to disclose their material connections. Your referral noted that Alo 

Yoga participated in ERSP’s self-regulatory process and agreed to voluntarily prepare guidelines 

for its ambassadors about endorsements, but failed to submit further information to ERSP 

regarding its guidelines or modify the challenged advertisements to disclose material 

connections. Accordingly, you referred this matter to the FTC for our review. 

After we alerted Alo Yoga to the ERSP’s referral to the FTC, the company eventually 

agreed to engage with the ERSP. We understand from recent conversations with you that Alo 

Yoga has actively cooperated with ERSP. We further understand that ERSP issued its Decision 

regarding this compliance investigation on June 18. 
Peter C. Marinello 

June 20, 2019 

Page2 

Accordingly, it appears no additional FTC action is warranted at this time. Our decision 

is not to be construed as a determination that a violation has not occurred. The Commission 

reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require. The FTC fully 

supports the ERSP's self-regulatory process, and we sincerely appreciate your referral and the 

opportunity to continue to assist in supporting ERSP. 

V~ y~our ___s, ______ _ 

Carolyn L. Hann _ 

Chief of Staff for Advertising Practices 

cc: Andrew P. Holland, Esq., Thoits Law 

Misasha S. Graham, Esq., Thoits Law
Exhibit 10.7(b)


Exhibit 10.7(b)




 SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT  DATED DECEMBER 29, 2008 


Amended Schedule II 
Executive Management Investors 
Keith J. McKinnish 
Joaquin Barrios 
John J. Anton 
Stephan Kessel
Franklin Myers
Exhibit 10.42

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this “Amendment No. 2”) is made by and between United Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Paul E. Jordan (the “Employee”), effective as of July 29, 2013.

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement on February 7, 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.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
UNITED   ONLINE, INC.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
By:
    	
Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
EMPLOYEE
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Paul E. Jordan
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
Paul E. Jordan
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8055 

To amend the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 to 

direct the award of Presidential awards for excellence in teaching of 

mathematics and science to more teachers from the territories, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 14, 2020 

Mr. SABLAN (for himself, Mrs. RADEWAGEN, and Mr. SAN NICOLAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the National Science Foundation Authorization 

Act of 1988 to direct the award of Presidential awards 

for excellence in teaching of mathematics and science 

to more teachers from the territories, 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 ‘‘STEM Educator 

5 Awards Equity Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8055 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN 

2 MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 117(a) of the National 

4 Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 

5 1881b(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘108’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘110’’; 

9 (B) by striking clause (iv); 

10 (C) in clause (v), by striking the period at 

11 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

12 (D) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), 

13 and (v) as subclauses (I), (II), (III), and (IV), 

14 respectively, and moving the margins of such 

15 subclauses (as so redesignated) two ems to the 

16 right; and 

17 (E) by striking ‘‘In selecting teachers’’ and 

18 all that follows through ‘‘two teachers—’’ and 

19 inserting the following: 

20 ‘‘(C) In selecting teachers for an award au21 thorized by this subsection, the President shall 

22 select— 

23 ‘‘(i) at least two teachers—’’; and 

24 (2) in subparagraph (C), as designated by para25 graph (1)(D), by adding at the end the following: 

26 ‘‘(ii) at least one teacher— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8055 IH

1 ‘‘(I) from the Commonwealth of 

2 the Northern Mariana Islands; 

3 ‘‘(II) from American Samoa; 

4 ‘‘(III) from the Virgin Islands of 

5 the United States; and 

6 ‘‘(IV) from Guam.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to awards made on 

9 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Sarah Teles PASTERNACK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald R. LUBRITZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4229.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 29, 1973.

Leo Boothe of Smith, Taliaferro, Seibert & Boothe, Jonesville, for defendant-appellant.

Paul Holmes of Holmes & Dukes, Hat-tiesburg, Miss., Falkenheiner & Calhoun by George Murray, Jr., Vidalia, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment which found defendant-appellant in contempt for failing to comply with a prior judgment of the court and from the denial of defendant-appellant’s motion for a new trial. Plaintiff-appellee contends that neither a judgment of contempt nor a judgment denying a new trial is appealable, and that the appeal should be dismissed. Defendant-appellant contends that the judgment, which also ordered him to comply with the former- judgment, changed one of the requirements of the prior judgment and is therefore appealable. We dismiss the appeal.

Although the wording of the January 26, 1973 judgment is somewhat different from the prior judgment, we see no change of substance of defendant-appellant’s duties. Moreover, the wording of the January 26 judgment clearly shows that it is only reiterating the requirements of the prior judgment. Thus, the portions of the judgment appealed from are no more than a judgment of contempt.

Our jurisprudence is established that a judgment holding one party in a law suit in contempt of court is not a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. A litigant’s remedy in such a case is to apply to this Court for supervisory writs, Wall v. Wall, 230 So.2d 420, (La.App. 1st Cir. 1969); Advertiser, Division of Independent, Inc. v. Tubbs, 199 So.2d 426, (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1967); Moity v. Mahfouz, 137 So.2d 513, (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1961).

*353The law is also well settled that a judgment refusing a new trial is not ap-pealable. It is not a final judgment and can produce no irreparable injury. The proper procedure is to appeal from the final judgment in the case in which the new trial was denied. General Motors Acceptance, Inc. v. Deep South Pest Control Inc, 247 La. 625, 173 So.2d 190 (1965); Fidelity National Bank of Baton Rouge v. Sheppard, 250 So.2d 574, (La.App. 1st Cir. 1971).

We therefore conclude that the judgments appealed from in the instant case are judgments which under the law of this State are not appealable.

For the foregoing, reasons the appeal is dismissed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.