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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE FIRST QUARTER ENDED JUNE 20,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-20-1998
<CASH>                                          140350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   217635
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     881606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1271486
<PP&E>                                         1620422
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3073889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1017297
<BONDS>                                         818150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38253
<OTHER-SE>                                      897822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3073889
<SALES>                                        3078386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3078386
<CGS>                                        (2192073)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (2192073)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (842082)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (18954)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  25277
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (6108)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              19169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     19169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022257EN.01001001.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — HJ v Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

(Case C-101/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/94/EC - Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency - Article 2(2) - Concept of ‘employee’ - Article 12(a) and (c) - Limitations on the responsibility of the guarantee institutions - Person exercising, on the basis of a contract of employment entered into with a trading company, the functions of a management board member and chief executive officer of that company - Concurrent exercise of functions - National case-law refusing that person the benefit of the guarantees laid down by that directive)

(2022/C 257/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HJ

Defendant: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) and Article 12(a) and (c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as precluding national case-law according to which a person who, on the basis of a valid contract of employment under national law, performs concurrently the duties of chief executive officer and of a member of a statutory body of a trading company cannot be regarded as an employee within the meaning of that directive and, therefore, cannot benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
#### *In re*MacMARTIN’S ESTATE. ROGERS *v.*McDONALD.

Executors and Administrators — Claim for Services — Question of Fact.

Allowance of plaintiff’s claim against estate for services rendered to deceased, *held,*to be within evidence, which was sufficient to raise issue as to whether, said services were rendered with expectation by deceased and plaintiff that latter would be paid.

Appeal from Tuscola; Smith (Henry II.), J.,

Submitted April 19, 1932.

(Docket No. 148, Calendar No. 36,470.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Joseph A. Rogers presented his claim for personal services against the estate of John MacMartin, deceased. From allowance by commissioners, Hugh *404McDonald, administrator, appealed to the circuit court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

*403On implication of agreement to pay for services rendered by relative or member of household, see annotation in 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873.

*404Affirmed.

*Theron W. Atwood,*for plaintiff.

*Collins <& Thompson,*for defendant.

Clark, C. J.

This is appeal from allowance of claim for services rendered by plaintiff, an aged man, to John MacMartin, now deceased.

The question is of sufficiency of evidence to take the case to the jury.

MacMartin requested plaintiff to come to his farm as he wanted and needed him. Plaintiff did farm work and housework for over three years and claims for it one dollar a day, which the jury allowed.

There is testimony that MacMartin said to plaintiff that he could collect one dollar a day, and, “If I didn’t want to pay you, I wouldn’t keep you,” and, “I am not going to pay you, I am going to keep your money and give it to you in a bunch so it will do you some good.”

This and other like evidence, together with that of circumstances of the parties, made the issue of whether the services were rendered with expectation of pay and with expectation to pay. *In re Hamlin’s Estate,*223 Mich. 156; *In re Knox’s Estate,*220 Mich. 469.

The verdict is easily within the evidence. No other question requires discussion. Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btjtzel, J J., concurred.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00158-CR

FOSTER DALEON JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR02262

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the court reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive 

data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a birth date, a home address, and the name of any 

person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(3). The 

aforementioned record includes the name of a person who was a minor at the time the offense was 

committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing 

with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because the 

reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in 

accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed reporter’s record in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: July 13, 2016
H. Res. 551

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 28, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4779) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act

to authorize local governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period

not to exceed four hours (excluding time consumed by recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto). It shall be

in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
2

HRES 551 EH

Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. Each section

of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall be considered as read. Any amendment offered by the

chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his

designee may amend portions of the bill not yet read for

amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
House Calendar No. 9

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 61

[Report No. 103–12]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

tion reported from the Committee on Rules.with respect to consideration of a certain resoluFEBRUARY 3, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 9

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 61

[Report No. 103–12]

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration

of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule

2 XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is hereby waived with respect to a resolution

5 providing for consideration of a bill relating to family and

6 temporary medical leave for certain employees.
Exhibit 4.3
​
​
DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STOCK
​
General
​
Our authorized capital stock consists of 450,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, and 30,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share. Our common stock is divided into two classes, Class A common stock and Class B common stock. Our authorized Class A common stock consists of 300,000,000 shares and our authorized Class B common stock consists of 150,000,000 shares.
​
We adopted an amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws on July 28, 2020. The following description of our capital stock and provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws are summaries and are qualified by reference to the amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws.
​
Common Stock
​
We have two classes of authorized common stock: Class A common stock and Class B common stock. The rights of the holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock are identical, except with respect to voting, conversion and transfer rights.
​
Voting Rights
​
Holders of shares of our Class A common stock are entitled to one vote for each share held of record on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. Holders of shares of our Class B common stock are entitled to ten votes for each share held of record on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. The holders of our common stock do not have cumulative voting rights in the election of directors.
​
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that so long as any shares of Class B common stock remain outstanding, the Company shall not, without the prior affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Class B common stock, voting as a separate class, in addition to any other vote required by applicable law or our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, whether by amendment, or through merger, consolidation or otherwise, amend, alter, change, repeal or adopt any provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation inconsistent with, or otherwise alter or change, any of the voting, conversion, dividend or liquidation provision of the shares of Class B common stock or other rights, powers, preferences or privileges of the shares of Class B common stock.
# C_2022119EN.01005902.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/59

---

Order of the General Court of 13 January 2022 — Flybe v Commission

(Case T-380/21) (1)

(2022/C 119/85)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 453

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the

situation in Rwanda.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1994

Mr. HASTINGS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with

respect to the situation in Rwanda.

Whereas an ethnic cleansing of the minority Tutsi tribe is

being carried out by the majority Hutu tribe in Rwanda;

Whereas as many as 500,000 innocent people may have been

slaughtered;

Whereas there has been little to no progress in brokering a

cease-fire after more than two months of slaughter;

Whereas international observers have stated that a cease-fire

does not seem to be forthcoming;

Whereas more than 500,000 children have been orphaned;

Whereas Catholic clergy have been executed;

Whereas millions of people face starvation;
2

•HRES 453 IH

Whereas the United Nations has been unable to resolve the

conflict in Rwanda;

Whereas the United States on February 25, 1989, ratified

and entered into the Convention of the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

Whereas the convention stipulates that genocide, whether

committed during peace or war, is an international crime

which must be prevented and punished; and

Whereas the Convention defines genocide as the intentional

destruction of any national, ethnic, racial, or religious

group, in whole or in part, by killing its members, causing them serious physical or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) strongly condemns the atrocities being car3 ried out in Rwanda; and

4 (2) calls such atrocities genocide.

Æ
#### WILLIAM MOODY, by next friend, vs. BENJAMIN BENSON.

The discretion exercised by justices of the peace, or trustees of the poor, in binding out poor children, may be reviewed on complaint to the court, or a judge in vacation.

Petition to be discharged from indentures of apprenticeship, on the ground of the invalidity of the binding.

The petitioner was bound by two justices of the peácé df Kent *116county, as a poor child having no parents able to maintain him and bring him up to industry, and in suitable employment.

Bates, sen. and jun., for petitioner.

Frame and *Comegys,*for defendant.

*Frame*and *Comegys,*for the defendant,

insisted that the adjudication of the magistrates on the question of the ability of the parent to maintain his children was conclusive, and was not subject to any revision by this court.

The first section of the act of 1827, concerning apprentices and servants, authorizes any two justices of the peace or trustees of the poor, to bind “ any minor who has no parent, residing in this State, and who has not property sufficient for his or her maintainance; and any minor, who has not parents able to maintain him or her and bring him or her up to industry and suitable employment.”

The fourteenth section provides, that if any apprentice or servant according to this act shall have cause of complaint against his mas. ter, “ fob cruelty, ill usage, treatment not conformable to the terms of the binding, breach of contract, *the invalidity of the binding,*or of an assignment, or *other sufficient matter,*such person may prefer a petition to the Superior Court, or any judge, praying relief; and the court or judge, shall have power to discharge the petitioner, to order an assignment of the indentures, to give directions concerning the treatment of the petitioner, to rebind the petitioner, and to annex to any order in the premises any terms that they may deem just and equitable.

*The Court*

considered this section as giving them full power of rehearing and revision in matters of binding apprentices under this law; and maintained their jurisdiction to inquire into this question of the ability of the parent to maintain his children, and bring them up to industry and suitable employment. The jurisdiction of the justices or trustees of the poor in this matter, is specially delegated and restricted to certain cases; their acts are invalid unless strictly within this authority, and it would be lamentable, indeed, if there was no power of revision over the exercise of this authority. The terms of the fourteenth section of the law, are sufficiently large to give this revision to the court or a judge; and we think that such was the evident meaning and object of the legislature.

The court proceeded to hear téstimony as to the ability of the father of these children to maintain them and bring them up to industry and suitable employment; and on the evidence on this point, they annulled the binding, expressly on the ground that it was not a fit case for the binding under this law.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 801

To prohibit the export of satellites intended for launch from launch vehicles

owned by China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit the export of satellites intended for launch from

launch vehicles owned by China.

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

3 That a license may not be issued under section 38 of the

4 Arms Export Control Act for the export of any satellite

5 intended for launch from a launch vehicle owned by China.

Æ
Dismissal and Opinion Filed July 1, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01712-CV 

JUAN PREMITIVO CASTRO AKA JUAN PIUMITIVO CASTRO AKA JUAN P. 

CASTRO, JOSEFINA CASTRO, AND EUSABIO PALACIOS, Appellants 

V. 

SELF-HELP VENTURES FUND, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-02250 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee in this case is past due. By postcards dated December 20, 2012, we 

notified appellants the $175 filing fee was due. We directed appellants to remit the filing fee 

within ten days and expressly cautioned appellants that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of the appeal. Further, by postcards also dated December 20, 2012, we notified 

appellants the docketing statement had not been filed in this appeal. We directed appellants to 

file a docketing statement within ten days and cautioned appellants that failure to do so might 

result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellants have not paid the filing fee, filed a 

docketing statement, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c). 

121712F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JUAN PREMITIVO CASTRO, ET AL, 

Appellants 

No. 05-12-01712-CV V. 

SELF-HELP VENTURES FUND, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-02250. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee SELF-HELP VENTURES FUND recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellants JUAN P. CASTRO, JOSEFINA CASTRO, AND EUSABIO 

PALACIOS. 

Judgment entered July 1, 2013 

 /Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
259 La. 634

#### W. C. LITTLETON, d/b/a Littleton Truck Service v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 51655.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 5, 1971.

In re: W. C. Littleton d/b/a Littleton Truck Service applying for writ of certi-orari.

Writs refused. The judgment of the lower court dismissing the petition is ap-pealable, and relator’s remedy, if any, is by appeal.
#### ST. PAUL BAPTIST CHURCH (an Unincorporated Association) v. ST. PAUL BAPTIST CHURCH OF LEESVILLE, INC., et al.

No. 53101.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: St. Paul Baptist Church of Lees-ville, Inc. and Rev. George H. Guillory applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vernon. 269 So.2d 314.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.