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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,243
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                       161
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,951
<PP&E>                                          15,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,965
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,670
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,540
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,155
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Edward James ARMSTEAD, Jr. v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62599.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Edward James Armstead, Jr., applying for remedial writs of certiorari, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Denied. The applicant could have been charged as a multiple offender in spite of having satisfied the previous sentences; he was not a “1st offender”.
# C_2022284EN.01004101.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/41

---

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO– The a.r.t. company b&s (art class)

(Case T-676/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 (Case R 1596/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The a.r.t. company b&s and Target Brands.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Target Brands, Inc. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Target Brands, Inc. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---
#### Donald B. BARMACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1063.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1973.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Gerald Ko-gan, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant, Donald B. Bar-mack, a municipal court judge, was indicted by the grand jury on one count of bribery and on a second count of conspiracy to commit bribery. Thereafter, an information was filed on the same counts and a jury trial was held. The prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence certain tapes of conversations between the defendant and one Blitch. The defendant was acquitted of the conspiracy charge, but the jury found him guilty of bribery.

On appeal, one of appellant’s main contentions is that the lower court erred in ruling that a municipal court judge is a public officer under Florida Statute § 838.-012, F.S.A.

The Florida Supreme Court in Farragut v. City of Tampa, 156 Fla. 107, 22 So.2d 645 (1945), squarely held that judges of municipal courts are judicial officers. See also McDaniel v. Harrell, 81 Fla. 66, 87 So. 631 (1921). Thus, it follows that a municipal court judge is a public officer. See 18A Fla.Jur. Judges § 2 (1971).

Further, assuming arguendo that a municipal judge is not a judicial, officer, he is at the very least a public officer, agent, servant, or employee, the categories included in F.S. § 838.012 F.S.A.1 The statute sets forth the public policy of the State of Florida in that any public officer who violates the terms thereof can be charged with the crime of bribery. See State ex rel. Marshall v. Turner, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.*2482d 809. Therefore, appellant’s argument must fail.

After having reviewed the record on appeal, arguments and briefs of counsel and after having listened to the tapes as requested by the appellant, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings. An appellate court will not disturb the findings of the jury where there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict. See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 345 (1963) and cases cited therein.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. “838.012 Accepting bribe

> “Any public officer, agent, servant, or employee who, after his election, appointment or employment . . *. ”*' •
# C_2022359EN.01007302.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/73

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2022 — Anglofranchise v EUIPO — Bugrey (BOY LONDON)

(Case T-439/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 359/91)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Anglofranchise Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta and R. Perotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Yuliya Bugrey (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 23 April 2021 (Case R 459/2020-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Yuliya Bugrey and Anglofranchise.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Anglofranchise Ltd and Yuliya Bugrey shall bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Anglofranchise Ltd and Yuliya Bugrey shall bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-10534

Summary Calendar

____________________

RODNEY W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NANCY J. CHAPMAN; SCOTT O. ENGEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-209

May 11, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Rodney W. Johnson, Texas

prisoner # 642258, contends that there was insufficient evidence to

support the j ury’s verdict. Because Johnson did not move for a

judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence or after

the return of the verdict, our review is limited to “the legality

of the verdict, i.e., whether there is any evidence to support the

jury verdict.” P hillips v. Frey

, 20 F.3d 623, 627 (5th Cir. 1994).- 2 -

We have reviewed th e record and find that there is evidence to

support the verdict. See id.

Johnson contends for the first time on appeal t hat various

members of the jury venire and members of the jury were biased. Of

course, our review i s limited to plain error. S ee Douglass v.

United Services Auto. Ass’n.

, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996)(en

banc). Because this issue involves issues of fact capable of

resolution in the district court, Johnson has not demonstrated such

error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th

Cir. 1995); Unit ed States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.

1995).

Johnson also contends that he was denied medica l treatment

afte r the alleged use of force. The district court did not

instruct the jury concerning this claim and the jury did not

address it. Moreover, at trial, Johnson did not object to the jury

instructions in this regard, nor does he contend now that the

instructions were defective. Consequently, he has abandoned this

claim on appeal. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993); Brinkman v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
#### SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSN., Appellant, v. Ulmer PRYOR et ux., Appellee.

No. 46218.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 19, 1971.

John K. Keyes, A. A. Calhoun, Collins, for appellant.

Louie Bishop, Stanford Young, Waynes-boro, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Elehue SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-638.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 30, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Michael' A. Lipsky, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 85; Evans v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 888; Holmes v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 433; and Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75 (5th Cir.1966).
## 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 “sensi tive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(3). The aforementioned record includes the name of a person who was a minor at t he 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) pro vides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because the reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her ap pointee, 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 1 3 , 2016
#### Herminia JIMENEZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of Felix A. Jimenez, Deceased, and Herminia Jimenez, as an individual, Appellant, v. Lary Fred VON ZAMFT and Coin Meter Company, Appellees.

No. 67-822.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 30, 1968.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1968.

Pred, Newman & Berg and Merrill I. Lamb, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellees; and James E. Tribble, Miami, for Coin Meter Company, appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Griffis v. DuBow, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 207; Bailey v. Keene, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 498; Jackson v. Haney, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 719; Applegate v. Holland, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 46.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM RAYMOND DURHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-92-86, CA-01-546)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Raymond Durham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Raymond Durham seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Durham, Nos. CR-92-86;

CA-01-546 (W.D. Va. July 19, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00329-CV

IN RE GERMANIA SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Proceeding

From the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13630CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Germania Select Insurance Company’s “Motion for Voluntary Dismissal”

is granted. Relator’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” and “Motion for Emergency Stay”

are dismissed.

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 15, 2021

[OT06]
Exhibit 99.0

                            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 Quarterly Report of Harrodsburg First Financial  Bancorp,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  we, Arthur L. Freeman, Chief Executive Officer, and Jack Hood, Chief
Financial Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.






/s/ Arthur L. Freeman                   /s/ Jack Hood
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Arthur L. Freeman                       Jack Hood
Chief Executive Officer                 Chief Financial and Accounting Officer




February 11, 2003
-------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1206 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1206

  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

   Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Dole) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham, 
Massachusetts, and known as the Waltham Federal Center, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frederick C. 
Murphy Federal Center''.

                                 <all>
```
Placeholder: Confidential Business Information item

Pure Chem Separation CBI Comment on 2-3-12

For more information please contact David Donaldson by phone at 202-343-9086 or by email at 

donaldson.david@epa.gov.
# C_2022303EN.01004201.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Future Motion v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (HYPERCORE)

(Case T-356/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark HYPERCORE - Earlier EU figurative mark HIPERCOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 303/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Future Motion, Inc. (Santa Cruz, California, United States) (represented by: F.-M. Orou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 (Case R 1229/2020 1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Future Motion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2021 (Case R 1229/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 April 2021 (Case R 1229/2020-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Future Motion, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Future Motion, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RESTATED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUN-30-1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          35,256
<SECURITIES>                                    24,705
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,225
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,364
<PP&E>                                          31,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,766
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,439
<SALES>                                         22,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,737
<CGS>                                            4,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,893)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,353
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,246)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      35
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,419)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.37)
        
<FN>
<F1>ALL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVELY RESTATED TO REFLECT THE POOLING WITH 
PREMENOS TECHNOLOGY CORP. AND A THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT IN THE FORM OF A 
STOCK DIVIDEND PAID ON MAY 15, 1998.
</FN>

</TABLE>