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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,807
<INVENTORY>                                      3,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,398
<PP&E>                                          74,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,162)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,051
<BONDS>                                         22,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,224
<SALES>                                         25,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,842
<CGS>                                         (18,700)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (27,824)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    60
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (387)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (610)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (139)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,058)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### John DAVIS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50290.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

Brunini, Everett, Beanland & Wheeless, Robert R. Bailess, Vicksburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County; Ben Guider, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
*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. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________ No. 06-30121 Summary Calendar

______________________ RAYMOND ABADIE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 2:02-CV-2888-ILRL)

________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Raymond Abadie appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s2

denial of social security disability benefits. Reviewing the record under the same standard as the district court, we vacate and remand to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ’s decision does not reflect any consideration of the December 11, 2003 opinion letter of Dr. Razza, a treating specialist. The ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Razza’s opinions, but w as required to consider them, and if he chose to reject them, to explain what conflicting evidence informed his choice and conduct the analysis required by Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Beasley
v. Barnhart, No. 04- 10890, 2006 WL 2062101, at *4 (5th Cir. July 25, 2006). The ALJ failed to do so. VACATED and REMANDED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 33419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13200]

[[Page 33419]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS13-15]

Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in closed session:
    Location: OCC--400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Date: June 12, 2013.
    Time: Immediately following the ASC open session.
    Status: Closed.
    Matters to be Considered:
    May 21, 2013 minutes--Closed Session
    Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-13200 Filed 6-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6701-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                     Amendment Four to Consulting Agreement

        WHEREAS, this Amendment Four to Consulting Agreement is effective July
1, 2000, and is made between NEORX CORPORATION, 410 West Harrison Street,
Seattle, Washington 98119, and DR. FRED CRAVES, 215 Laurel Grove, Kentfield,
California 94904; and

        WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of extending the term of said
Consulting Agreement.

        NOW, THEREFORE, the term of the Agreement shall be extended to December
31, 2000.

        All other terms and conditions of the original Consulting Agreement as
amended shall remain in full force and effect, as stated.

                                              NeoRx Corporation

                                              By: /s/ PAUL G. ABRAMS
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      Paul G. Abrams, M.D., J.D.
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                              /s/ FRED B. CRAVES
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Fred B. Craves, Ph.D.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1365 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1365

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for fair 
application of the exceptions process for drugs in tiers in formularies 
           in prescription drug plans under Medicare part D.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2013

Mr. Nelson (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for fair 
application of the exceptions process for drugs in tiers in formularies 
           in prescription drug plans under Medicare part D.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Part D Beneficiary Appeals Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FAIR EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR DRUG IN TIERS UNDER MEDICARE PART 
              D.

    Section 1860D-4(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
104(g)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``for tiered cost-sharing for drugs 
                included within a formulary and'' and inserting ``for 
                any tiered cost-sharing structure within a formulary 
                (including a structure that''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, or provides for different co-
                payment or coinsurance amounts for drugs in different 
                tiers included within the formulary)'' before ``, a 
                part D eligible individual'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``in any plan 
        formulary'' before ``could be covered''; and
            (3) by inserting the following before the last sentence: 
        ``In no case may the Secretary allow a PDP sponsor to make any 
        formulary tier of the tiered cost-sharing structure (including 
        a formulary tier used for very high cost or unique items) 
        ineligible for lower-cost sharing through an exception under 
        this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Raymond LAROQUE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1974.

*399Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

This appeal is by the defendant below from a judgment of conviction of “unlawfully and feloniously buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same to be stolen”.

Appellant contends the court erred in denying his motion for acquittal at the close of the state’s case, because of lack of proof of the essential element of knowledge that the property was stolen. We find merit in that contention of the appellant and reverse the judgment on the authority of Graham v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 616, and the opinion of the Supreme Court, in discharging certiorari, State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 618.

On a Saturday night or early the next morning certain coins were stolen from the place of business of a coin dealer in the City of Miami. On Monday the appellant accompanied by James Vincent Vitale appeared at the place of business of a coin dealer in the City of Coral Gables, where the appellant presented certain coins and offered them for sale to the dealer. The police arrived and arrested the defendant and his companion there. Both were later informed against, charged as above stated.

In State v. Graham, supra, the Supreme Court said:

> “Proof of mere naked possession of property recently stolen, not aided by other proof that the accused received it knowing it to have been stolen, is not sufficient to show guilty knowledge. * * * Proof of possession should be coupled with evidence of unusual manner of acquisition, attempts at concealment, contradictory statements, the fact that the goods were being sold at less than their value, possession of other stolen property, or other incriminating evidence and circumstances.”

In the instant case the state furnished proof that the coins which the appellant offered for sale were those which had been stolen recently, as above stated. Thus the appellant-defendant was shown to have been in unexplained possession of recently stolen property. No evidence was presented as to unusual manner of acquisition of the coins by the defendant, or of any contradictory statements by him or of any attempts by the defendant to conceal the coins, or to sell them at less than their value. The brief of the state does not refer to any incriminating evidence or circumstances other than that the coins which the defendant offered to sell were recently stolen, and that the defendant was in unexplained possession of such recently stolen property.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction that the appellant-defendant be discharged.
#### Helen Robertson MARKHAM, Appellant, v. Charles Whitlow MARKHAM, Appellee.

No. 71-803.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1973.

John R. Bush, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.

Richard W. Reeves, of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the briefs and record on appeal and find that the final judgment appealed is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Fort v. Fort, 90 So.2d 313 (Fla.1956).

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

MANN, C. J., dissents.

MANN, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

This case seems to me to be closer to Hood v. Hood, Fla.App.2d 1958, 100 So.2d 422, than to *Fort, supra.*There was in *Hood*an element of fraud not present in this case, but nevertheless the result of Dr. Markham’s working for less income in .exchange for substantial stock in a corporation which bought the professional clinic operated by Markham and others is an improper diminution of the money properly payable by him for the maintenance of his former wife. I think the trial judge ruled incorrectly that he lacked authority to consider this question. I would reverse.
The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3169

_____________

Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & *

Warehouse Workers Union Pension *

Fund, a pension trust; George Ossey; *

Tony Cullotta; John Broderick; *

William H. Carpenter, the present *

trustees, *

*

Appellees, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Brotherhood Labor Leasing, a Missouri *

corporation; MFI Leasing Company, a * [UNPUBLISHED]

Missouri corporation; Falls City *

Industries, Inc., a Kentucky *

corporation; Middlewest Freightways, *

Inc., a Missouri corporation, *

*

Appellants. *

_____________

Submitted: March 9, 1998

Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________

Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and

MONTGOMERY, District Judge.1

_____________
The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistriate Judge for the Eastern 2

District of Missouri, acting pursuant to the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c).

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal the summary judgment entered against them by the District

Court awarding plaintiffs interim payments of withdrawal liability under the Employee 2

Retirement Income Security Act of 1980. The judgment is based on the court's

determination that defendants were under common control with Be-Mac Transport, Inc.

on the date of Be-Mac's complete withdrawal from the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers

and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund.

Having considered the briefs, the record, and the arguments of the parties, we

conclude that the judgment of the District Court is correct. No error of law appears,

and an opinion would add nothing of substance to the thorough and well-written

opinions of the District Court. Accordingly, we forego extended discussion.

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 00-1149.

#### Howell et al. *v.*Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 13, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 13, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0213. DMAC81, LLC v. HONG HOA T. NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TUAN MINH NGUYEN.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2018CV069059
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-QSB, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dee Dee Lowery, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Dee Dee LoweryName:

Dee Dee LoweryTitle:

Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:

8-11-06


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
256 La. 620

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Larry J. BOUDREAUX v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50710.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 9, 1970.

In re: Larry J. Boudreaux applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4029]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Civil Penalty Factors--Final Rule

    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www,cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 22, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4029 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
```
261 La. 822

#### Henry J. BRANTLEY et al. v. James BROWN et al.

No. 52391.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 1972.

In re: Helen J. Myles and Traders & General Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 260 So.2d 719.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the. record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42

                           [LETTERHEAD OF BANK EXIM]

                           LETTER OR AUTHENTICATION


WE, PT. BANK EKSPOR IMPOR INDONESIA (PERSERO) WITH FULL BANK RESPONSIBILITY AND
AUTHORITY, IRREVOCABLE CONFIRM THAT:

BANK GUARANTEE NO.    :**8/****-**/*/**
AMOUNT                :US$ 25,000,000.00 (US DOLLARS TWENTY FIVE MILLION)
ISSUED DATE           :OCTOBER 21, 1998
MATURITY DATE         :OCTOBER 21, 2000

BANK GUARANTEE NO.    :**9/****-**/*/**
AMOUNT                :US$ 25,000,000.00 (US DOLLARS TWENTY FIVE MILLION)
ISSUED DATE           :OCTOBER 21, 1998
MATURITY DATE         :OCTOBER 21, 2000

IS GENUINE, CAN BE VERIFIED AND CONFIRMED BANK TO BANK THROUGH THE FOLLOWING
BANK COORDINATED:

BANK NAME             :PT. BANK EKSPOR IMPOR INDONESIA (PERSERO)
BANK ADDRESS          :JL. JEND. GATOT SUBROTO KAV 36-38
                       JAKARTA - INDONESIA
BANK OFFICERS         :SOFWAN ADIWIDJAJA
TELEPHONE NUMBER      :****
FACSIMILE NUMBER      :****
TELEX NUMBER          :****
S.W.I.F.T. CODE       :****

JAKARTA, OCTOBER 21, 1998

FOR AN ON BEHALF OF
PT. BANK EKSPOR IMPOR INDONESIA (PERSERO)
    JAKARTA PLAZA EXIM BRANCH

          [SEAL]

     /s/ ****
     -----------------
          B.43.B


ENDORSEMENT BANK INDONESIA
           [SEAL]


/s/ ****
--------------------------
#### CITY OF CORAL GABLES, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. GULF OIL CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 21, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

906 CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The
accompanying Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended May 31, 2009, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|      |                |  |                               | 
|----- | -------------- |  | ----------------------------- | 
|Date: | July 14,
 2009 |  | /s/
 David H. Roche           | 
|      |                |  | President
 and                | 
|      |                |  | Chief
 Executive Officer      | 
|      |                |  |                               | 
|      |                |  | /s/
 Steven M. Caspers        | 
|      |                |  | Executive
 Vice President and | 
|      |                |  | Chief
 Financial Officer      | 

---
#### DEPOSIT GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK v. AMERICAN ROAD INS. CO. et al.

No. 46109.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1971.

Courtney & Echols, Jackson, for appellant.

Thomas, Price, Alston, Jones & Davis, Jackson, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds, County; M. M. McGowan, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### E. B. ANDREWS, Petitioner, v. CITY OF LAKE BUTLER, a municipal corporation, Respondent.

No. 40546.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 22, 1971.

DEKLE, Justice

(dissenting):

The real issue before us is the sufficiency of the complaint to withstand the motion *570to dismiss, which was granted below on a count in conversion. In my view the complaint was good on its face and any further disposition would go to the merits to be determined later. I would accordingly grant the writ of certiorari and allow the count in conversion to stand for disposition on the merits. For these reasons I respectfully dissent.