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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          14,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                     17,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,238
<PP&E>                                         558,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                 256,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 375,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,858
<BONDS>                                        320,776
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                    (97,040)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   375,972
<SALES>                                        144,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,683
<CGS>                                           44,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,208)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (319)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,527)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020103EN.01003401.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/34

---

Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)

(Case T-65/20)

(2020/C 103/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kneissl Holding GmbH (Ebbs, Austria) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LS 9 GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark KNEISSL — EU trade mark No 291 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 2265/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU trade mark No 291 377 KNEISSL for the following goods: ‘sports bags’ in Class 18 and ‘sportswear, leisurewear, weather protection clothing; ski suits; ski trousers; ski anoraks, underwear, headgear’ in Class 25, and dismiss the corresponding application for revocation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU trade mark No 291 377 KNEISSL for the following goods: ‘sports bags’ in Class 18 and ‘sportswear, leisurewear, weather protection clothing; ski suits; ski trousers; ski anoraks, underwear, headgear’ in Class 25, and dismiss the corresponding application for revocation;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
RegistrationNumber
    
    Description of Registration Statement
    
    Filing Date33-49052
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    June 26, 1992333-03293
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 8, 1996333-19697
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan  Form S-8
    
    January 13, 1997333-53879
    
    Directors Deferred Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 29, 1998333-53881
    
    Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock Incentive Plan
and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 29, 1998333-76297
    
    Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec Industries
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors  Form S-8
    
    April 14, 1999333-77023
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation
2001 Equity Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    April 26, 1999333-60210
    
    Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 4, 2001333-60208
    
    Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 4, 2001333-98165
    
    Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock, Common
Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units  Form S-3
    
    August 15, 2002333-107866
    
    Goodrich Corporation Employees Savings Plan  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-107867
    
    Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees Savings Plan  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-107868
    
    Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-109247
    
    Goodrich Corporation Directors Deferred Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    September 29, 2003333-123721
    
    Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan  Form S-8
    
    March 31, 2005333-124244
    
    Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    April 22, 2005333-151477
    
    Goodrich Corporation Amended and Restated 2001 Equity Compensation Plan
 Form S-8
    
    June 6, 2008333-151478
    
    Goodrich Corporation 2008 Global Employee Stock Purchase Plan  Form S-8
    
    June 6, 2008
  
 69
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 22

- 00747

- CR

Ricardo GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR1779 Honorable Jennifer Peña

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED . Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED

.

SIGNED August 21, 2024.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela

, Justice
#### BILES, Jr. *v.*STATE

[No. 176,

September Term, 1962.]

*538
      *Decided February 5, 1963.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and Sybert, JJ.

*Charles Calm II*for appellant.

*lacques M. Leeds, Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, William I. O’Donnell, State’s Attorney,*and' *Robert Vj Lazzaro, Assistcmt State’s Attorney,*on the brief, for appellee.

PER Curiam.

The appellant, who was indicted in Baltimore City for armed robbery, plead guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 15 years in the Penitentiary to begin at the expiration of a 15-year sentence he was then serving for an armed robbery he had committed in Baltimore County. He appealed from the judgment and sentence last imposed, and the State moved to dismiss the appeal.

Since the appendix to the appellant’s brief contains the whole of the record made in the trial court other than the report of the proceedings at the presentence hearings conducted by the court, the motion to dismiss will be denied. But because there is nothing in the record to support any of the thirteen irrelevant questions presented by appellate counsel at the request of the appellant, the judgment will be affirmed.

The plea of guilty, which, as the record discloses, was knowingly and understanding^ made, was the equivalent of a conviction and evidence to prove guilt was not required. *Moyer v. State,*225 Md. 156. Upon a plea of guilty, all that a court is required to do is enter judgment and impose sentence as on a verdict of guilty; and a judgment so entered cannot ordinarily be reviewed on appeal. *Lowe v. State,*111 Md. 1.

A sentence is also a matter that may not ordinarily be reviewed on appeal, and this case is no exception to the rule. *539See *Mitchell v. State,*82 Md. 527. Although there had been some discussion between the court and trial counsel regarding a concurrent sentence at the preliminary presentence hearing, there was no mention of it at the final presentence hearing, and the record does not indicate or even suggest that the defendant had been promised a concurrent sentence should he plead guilty. Moreover, when the defendant was given an opportunity to personally speak to the court, he did not ask for the imposition of a concurrent sentence (which he now claims he should have been given) : the only request made was that he be sent to the Penitentiary instead of Patuxent.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Winfield Capital Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A. Perlin,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: June 26, 2003                      By: /s/ PAUL A. PERLIN
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Paul A. Perlin
                                              Chairman of the Board &
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
The JG Industries, Inc. Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-26-1997
<CASH>                                            565 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                     582 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       42 
<INVENTORY>                                     7,481 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,928       
<PP&E>                                         15,081      
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,636    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,023      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,191    
<BONDS>                                         1,164  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                     1,500 
<COMMON>                                       11,246 
<OTHER-SE>                                    (6,220)       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,023         
<SALES>                                        11,754          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,754          
<CGS>                                           7,858          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,858          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,587       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  7       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (721)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                       10      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (731)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (731) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.72) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0<F1> 
<FN>

<F1> In accordance with current financial statement presentation requirements, 
     this information is not included in the Company's consolidated financial 
     statements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1****Compensation Arrangements for Scott E. Kuechle**Set forth below is a summary of the current compensation arrangements for Scott E. Kuechle, whichwill continue in his capacity as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of GoodrichCorporation (the “Company”). The Company expects that the Compensation Committee of the Company’sBoard of Directors will review these arrangements at a future meeting and make changes asappropriate to reflect Mr. Kuechle’s new responsibilities with the Company.Mr. Kuechle is an at-will employee whose compensation and employment status may be changed at anytime in the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors, subject only to the terms of themanagement continuity agreement referenced below**Base Salary.**Effective January 1, 2005, Mr. Kuechle’s annual base salary is $270,000.**Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plans.**Mr. Kuechle is eligible to: **•** Receive an annual cash incentive award pursuant to the Management Incentive Program(filed as Exhibit 10(U) to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-K”)).  **•** Participate in the Company’s long-term incentive program, which currently involves theaward of restricted stock units, stock options and performance units pursuant to theCompany’s 2001 Equity Compensation Plan (filed as Appendix B to the Company’s 2005 proxystatement dated March 7, 2005).**Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements.**Mr. Kuechle is eligible to: **•** Participate in the Company’s broad-based benefit programs generally available to itssalaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs, qualified401(k) and pension plans and a severance plan.  **•** Participate in non-qualified 401(k) and pension plans (filed as Exhibits 10(Y) and10(Z) to the Form 10-K).  **•** Receive certain perquisites offered by the Company, including an automobile allowance,automobile insurance, financial counseling and tax preparation, club membership, annualphysical examination and long-distance telephone service. Mr. Kuechle is also eligibleto receive a tax gross-up on the above amounts.**Management Continuity Agreement.**The Company and Mr. Kuechle are parties to a managementcontinuity agreement (the form of which is filed as Exhibit 10(BB) to the Form 10-K), whichprovides for a two-year period of employment commencing upon a
1

 
change in control of the Company (as defined in the agreement) in the same position and with thesame responsibilities and authorities that Mr. Kuechle possesses immediately prior to a change incontrol and generally with the same benefits and level of compensation, including average annualincreases. If the Company or its successor terminates his employment during that two-year periodfor reasons other than “cause” or he voluntarily terminates his employment for a “good reason” (ineach case as defined in the agreement), Mr. Kuechle would be entitled to the equivalent of threeyears of additional compensation and benefits (including excise tax gross-up) calculated inaccordance with the agreement.
2
732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20401-0001 | www.gpo.gov | www.fdsys.gov

Follow GPO on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/USGPO Twitter http://twitter.com/USGPO

Pinterest http://pinterest.com/usgpo/ and on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/gpoprinter.

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 24, 2014 No. 14-24

MEDIA CONTACT: GARY SOMERSET 202.512.1957 | mb 202.355.3997 | gsomerset@gpo.gov

GPO’S CIO HONORED FOR 

TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Government Printing Office’s (GPO) Chief Information Officer 

Chuck Riddle received FedScoop’s Federal Leadership award for introducing and advancing 

technology initiatives at the agency. Riddle was honored for moving the agency’s email to the cloud. 

This transition will simplify the agency’s IT infrastructure, gain greater functionality, and enable 

faster upgrades for future enhancements. In addition, GPO will benefit from a larger mailbox size, 

increased email archiving, anti-spam and malware services, collaboration tools and online meeting 

capabilities. Although several other Government agencies have already made the transition to the 

cloud, GPO is the first legislative branch agency to move its email to the cloud and expects to 

complete the migration by January 2015. 

Riddle joins other technology leaders from the Federal IT community honored for contributions to 

their agencies. The FedScoop 50 Awards recognizes the achievements of 50 of the Federal IT 

community’s best and brightest minds and innovators. 

“Congratulations to Chuck on this award and for continuing to introduce new technologies that will 

move GPO forward and benefit our customers,” said Public Printer Davita Vance-Cooks. “This 

award is a reflection of the technological strategies GPO has in place to more effectively use 

resources and further our commitment as the digital, information platform for the Federal 

Government.”

GPO is the Federal Government’s official, digital, secure resource for producing, procuring, 

cataloging, indexing, authenticating, disseminating, and preserving the official information products 

of the U.S. Government. GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of information 

products and services for all three branches of the Federal Government, including U.S. passports for 

the Department of State as well as the official publications of Congress, the White House, and other 

Federal agencies in digital and print formats. GPO provides for permanent public access to Federal 

Government information at no charge through our Federal Digital System (www.fdsys.gov), 

partnerships with approximately 1,200 libraries nationwide participating in the Federal Depository 

Library Program, and our secure online bookstore. For more information, please visit www.gpo.gov.

###
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 791 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 791

 To name the United States courthouse in Benton, Illinois, the ``James 
                        L. Foreman Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1993

 Mr. Poshard introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To name the United States courthouse in Benton, Illinois, the ``James 
                        L. Foreman Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES L. FOREMAN COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Name.--The United States courthouse located at 301 West Main 
Street in Benton, Illinois, is named the ``James L. Foreman 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, document, 
record, map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse 
referred to in subsection (a) is deemed to be a reference to the 
``James L. Foreman Courthouse''.

                                 <all>
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51002 Summary Calendar

RUDY STANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-89

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rudy Stanko a ppeals the d enial of his complaint, i n which h e sought relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, relative to his assertion that the prohibition a gainst h is possessing a firearm o r ammunition is unconstitutional. He argues that the district court erred when it trea t e d h is claims as falling under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or habeas corpus. District courts are directed to screen complaints filed by prisoners in civil actions a nd dismiss a complaint if it fails to s tate a claim u pon which relief m ay U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51002 Document: 00512246841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2013No. 12-51002

b e g r anted. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We review such dismissals d e n o v o , accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewi n g t h em in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Green v. Atkinson , 623 F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2010). To the extent that Stanko relies on the Declaratory Judgment Act to ch a l l e n g e the prohibition against his possession of a firearm and ammunition imposed after he was convicted of violating the Federal M eat Inspection Act, he fails to state a claim for w hich relief can be granted. See Johnson v. Onion , 761 F.2d 2 24, 226 (5th Cir. 1985). Further, t o the extent that he asserts a claim for declaratory reli e f that in effect attacks the constitutionality of the conviction and sentence imposed for violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act and he has not shown th at his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by e xecutive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such det e rmination, o r called i nto question by a f ederal court’s issuance of a writ o f habeas cor p u s , h e f a i l s to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 6 41, 643-48 (1997); Clarke v. Stadler , 154 F.3d 186, 190-91 ( 5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Stanko’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-51002 Document: 00512246841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2013