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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                       4,235,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,248,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   301,000
<INVENTORY>                                 25,622,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,269,000
<PP&E>                                      20,776,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,572,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,657,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,407,000
<BONDS>                                      8,644,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,994,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,612,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,657,000
<SALES>                                     63,838,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,838,000
<CGS>                                       43,522,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               61,125,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               178,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,515,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,020,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   315,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            705,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   705,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7153** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

ANTWAIN O. CARTER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr
- 00357

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : September 11 , 2012 Decided: September 14, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Antwain O. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Antwain O. Carter appeals a district court order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c) (2006). The court denied the motion because the

Guidelines amendments did not lower Carter’s Guidelines sentence

because he was sentenced as a career offender. We conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion

. United

States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating
standard of review). Accordingl y, we affirm the district

court’ s order. 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 .
AFFIRMED
‘Beate
or other Oe as y ss
pee cete heels nytlins,
PLAGE OF Apops | mae * J non]
tog grees ewe ae of ade om arena [] hi ilalt * each ead Une 3 = EJ
4 = glee Sah ere eee | ers i ! H G x ccormanen ewer 1
Weegee] Sseeeaee— [AEFI 4) 1 4 UMA A eee ne ame er | eee eet el
2 * * 4 re s Z ca = aro CEE ee Se eo FAG = = 2 CJ z = = sic = =i - = co ris = is -
tinned FE Wied > ha) El vibh 3 We lie Ie | Ye. donansst laren Pre fork st Penk rot
BC EM EET EY) Ayr pepe Oia 42 tanh O wie U1 AA Zd SOPOT OS CVO HOR” a ; OL DOT De £4 Dnt g573 —_bwe! z
——_ Seid, = A SR SET °F Se Cy Pe OY ONE : OOD I zz POara fe
a oa PY Ll | CA SUA PP eB 7c SOOT DOE ET OT Pa Sia
(OENTEME | V by | wet ¢ C174 (OORT me" ss Pare
— [; AOE OREN Vielwh ats | WecWestep hist | a ope
= ee Se FO WIE lwials | fester 2 An
7 — onan 4S 0 i VIE} wi @l¢ 7 ee Jeg Pica messi £3 nt =
— Oe VA A ee Re TR ST al” Sie
= Ee | Vinlw! ws lo |We CROP ar 53 aw
eee Ai Le | WIE Iwi x !¢ AA ¢ 3 Fis
ni}. Pesyook-Seeaynist | Pros, z | Vl wRels | In eee Rete Soe foveal td ACN Na ea: cond fad! ZA |
3 : VE Iwhals CHES Nich Ln dita, Nach Ete NA dl bahia the Pain x - G
m haa ie Te LE lw last s a es DETER TON (IANO A WL TSAS TH IOI aledelenlanteetacea ee
1s fest | yi Ia9 18 Wy E. Sasa Enacted | ise MB ¢ YES) ye saat - az :
1 See Ge wor roe ae Ss le Nest yc KONTO eA wee a Oe ae leet 7 Orr a: Yed 7
2 Se Steen _ VE tw buolvol We Mest cd atts | 53 wT PED es
ig] | 1 Ino |a0 Piss Donia Golancouy | O leo veel wo Waly baal 2 PR CORRE PORT IARI AE! PRT 22 . 2374. e
19 ts OPE ae hae OO, a ie : Vie | we big lon bg Lave Hes! Ron DDO AL Jeet a PO: COD UY ee 22. a i
20 EE PEW Sy t-te PL Via dw Wat | veclyes! A 4 Foe
iat ——"_ Fy da, * £ Vhs by lists { 22 nee
2 Pa Wat Ae sO v clan Was Mec TER PS J 7 el, Co% bw Nec
mi —= ae ‘le w ize | s Aird POPE DALEK ver WT 4 a
mel y_loi nyeo!P ive Wy byw 120 in habe ae Mesut Yh sa sat tren £553
35 ae Le a ae) sh. = Beir Vic lw bye law o Wes sed ao SRWe m ‘ pees
204 Sea ELS PR wh ve Ty cdl es Nees! ie CTPA 7} ee
27| a aT es Ea u Vintlwle Fs | We we Peay 7A Tas
| aa ee pl PRLS laa fe Yo "EE! RYLEY FSS
so} . 5 RY . Ss an r
31 3 fala ‘ TS Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. =e
32 ern : Tes
33 _ XY Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
ta m2 -
3 ee aaa eboees WAE (eg is) 1K Z : i ? Z| | \ aa ¥ WARE)
pa} YS Fae lites nna baeah fo Ih Cooo IR Aw lan holla Wer | : : \ Cal tacrapiny FeTT 3
137} Eee ee ee Vik lw hq ; f eee a
Ee} LW Aa A Vinal w lig |g PGE :
20 | ne foeete L a" wlinic Anes
“ ORS BE PE Via lwlalc eT:
oh eon) os Elwl alc
«| ——_ ba ; FRR Vialwl zis
43) eet S.
i oer Vie rans
. Via lw leo lf
pfdlas! = tt Ho |issocolR lwo le lw Hie
“ OE TELE Oe VE lw ‘
{== Clariabeet 10am at. fe w hal s T
eee at fe ents |

'
‘
ir
#### Beatrice Smith FORD and William Ivey Ford, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 73-758, 73-755.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1974.

Pollack, Yocom & Haggard, Miami, for appellants.

*515Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24; Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95; Wetherington v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 294.
#### Frederick W. SUTTON, Administrator, Estate of Edward J. Sutton, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Wilbur STEAR, Administrator, Estate of Gladys I. Stear, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 43863.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 346.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
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 of Cutter & Buck Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 15, 2003 (the Report), I, Ernest R.
Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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/ ErnestR. JohnsonErnest R. JohnsonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  29


---
Exhibit 10.7

FORM OF

CONTINGENT PURCHASE PRICE NOTE AGREEMENT

     THIS CONTINGENT PURCHASE PRICE NOTE AGREEMENT is dated as of ________  __, 2004 (this "Agreement") among Folksamerica Holding Company, Inc. a New York corporation (the "Purchaser"), Sierra Health Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Sierra"), CII Financial, Inc., a California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sierra (the "Seller"), and, with respect to Article 5 only, Folksamerica Reinsurance Company, a New York insurance company and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Purchaser ("FRC").

W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of November 25, 2003 (the "Stock Purchase Agreement") among Sierra, the Seller and the Purchaser, the Purchaser has agreed to purchase from the Seller, and the Seller has agreed to sell to the Purchaser, all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of California Indemnity Insurance Company (the "Company"), upon the terms and subject to the conditions contained therein;

     WHEREAS, in order to induce Sierra and the Seller to execute and deliver the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser has agreed that a portion of the purchase price under the Stock Purchase Agreement will be in the form of a contingent payment obligation of the Purchaser to the Seller, as set forth more fully herein; and

     WHEREAS, the execution and delivery of this Agreement is a condition to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement and the form of this Agreement is an exhibit thereto.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and in the Stock Purchase Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1
<PAGE>

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

                                                                    Exhibit 32.0

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    To our knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

Dated: August 5, 2004                     /s/  David F. Holland
                                          ---------------------
                                          David F. Holland
                                          Chief Executive Officer

                                          /s/  John A. Simas
                                          ---------------------
                                          John A. Simas
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### G. Edwin HERROLD, Appellant, v. Barbara A. HERROLD, Appellee.

No. 71-611.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,539
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,445
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     25,197
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,337
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,343
<LOANS>                                        101,748
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,178
<DEPOSITS>                                     102,896
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,791
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,190
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,724
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 140,178
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,154
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  455
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    14
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,623
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,091
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,352
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,271
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        3
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    346
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         346
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       253
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.93
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,050
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,054
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                        75
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,127
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,127
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2

                             Amendment No. 2 to the
             Giga Information Group, Inc. 1997 Director Option Plan


           By resolution of the Board of Directors of Giga Information Group,
Inc. on June 4, 2001, the following amendment to the Giga Information Group,
Inc. 1997 Director Option Plan has been adopted:

           Section 5(a)(i) has been amended in its entirety to read as follows:

           "(i) On July 20 of each year, commencing on July 20, 2001, options to
           purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock will be granted to each
           Non-Employee Director of the Company then serving as a Non-Employee
           Director (subject to reduction on a pro rata basis to the extent
           there are insufficient shares available under the Plan)."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2020

No. 04-19-00761-CV

In re Commitment of Kevin Johnson,

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI23245

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 19, 2020, this court issued its opinion and judgment in this appeal. A motion 

for rehearing is due on September 3, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1

After the due date, Appellant filed a motion for a forty-five-day extension of time to file a 

motion for rehearing and a motion for en banc reconsideration. 

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances, Appellant’s motions are

GRANTED. Appellant’s motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration must be 

filed with this court not later than October 19, 2020. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TOMMY BURNS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-3419

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 6, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Jenifer M. Davis, Judge.

Tommy F. Burns, Indiantown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

COHEN, J. 

Tommy Burns appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief

filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Burns claims that trial

counsel affirmatively misadvised him that the sentences for his two convictions would 

run concurrently, however, the Department of Corrections is requiring he serve the 

sentences consecutively. He alleges that his plea was therefore not voluntary and that

he would not have entered it but for counsel’s misadvice.
2

The trial court ruled that Burns’s motion was untimely filed. The State properly 

concedes this ruling was erroneous. Additionally, the sentencing orders attached to the 

trial judge’s order do not refute the allegations raised.

Burns was sentenced in the two cases on separate days. The trial judge attached 

the sentencing orders from both cases. The trial court1 specified in the first case that the 

sentence was to run concurrently to any and all active sentences. The second case, 

which is the subject of this appeal, does not designate how the sentence was to be 

served. As a result, pursuant to section 921.16, Florida Statutes (2012), the sentence is 

to be served consecutively. While the attachments might reflect the trial judge’s intent, it 

does not address the issue of counsel’s alleged misadvice.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record 

refuting Burns’s allegations or in the alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

 1 Judge Wayne Wooten imposed the sentences.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COOPER
LIFE SCIENCES, INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED OCTOBER
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                      65,258
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,830
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,266
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             41,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,573
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         37,627
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                37,627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                17.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                16.66
<FN>
See the financial statements for an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        


<PAGE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     Exhibit 21

                           Video Display Corporation
                              Subsidiary Companies


Apex Electronics, Inc.
100 Eighth Street
Passaic, New Jersey

Fox International Ltd., Inc.
23600 Aurora Road
Bedford Heights, Ohio

Southwest Vacuum Devices, Inc.
4210 North Sullinger Avenue
Tucson, Arizona

Vanco International, Inc.
1565 Shields Drive
Waukegan, Illinois

Video Display (Europe), Ltd.
Unit 2 Avenue Farm Industrial Estate
Warwickshire, CV37 OHU, England

Video Electronics, S.A. de C.V.
Calle Zinc Sin No.
Garza Garcia N.L.
Mexico

Magna View, Inc.
1240 Profit Drive
Dallas, Texas  75241

Z-Axis, Inc.
15 Eagle Street
Phelps, New York 14532

Teltron Technologies, Inc.
2 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, PA  19508
No. 11541.

#### Pennsylvania Company *v.*Day et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Seneca county.

*Messrs. Marshall &*
      *488
      *Fraser*and *Messrs. Royer & Spitler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Dore & Dore,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### Walter A. FAIKS, Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Walter A. Faiks, Fort Lauderdale, in pro per.

Davis E. Duke, Jr., of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, and Ferrero, Middlebrooks & Houston, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Knapp v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 1943, 111 Colo. 492, 144 P.2d 981; 19 A.L.R.3d p. 1361 et seq. See also Piver v. Hoberman, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 408.

CROSS and MAGER, JJ., and SMITH, CULyER, Associate Judge, concur.