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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements  for Capital  Mortgage  Plus L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000845875
<NAME>                        Capital Mortgage Plus L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         217,902
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,528,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               850,855
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28,597,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          446,744
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,150,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28,597,517
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,488,183
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               680,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,807,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,807,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
                                               

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4

Third Amendment to the  APAC Customer Services, Inc.  Second Amended and Restated 1995 Incentive Stock Plan

WHEREAS, APAC Customer Services, Inc. (the "Company") established and maintains the APAC Customer
Services, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1995 Incentive Stock Plan, as amended effective June 9, 2000 (the "Plan"), and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to eliminate the one year "waiting period" that applies in the event of the acceleration of
exercisability of options on the death or retirement of a Director,

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of February 9, 2004, in the following respect:

Paragraph 6(C)(ii) of
the Plan is amended to read as follows:

"ii.
Notwithstanding the above limitations, any option granted under this Plan shall become fully exercisable upon the death of the Non-employee Director while serving on the Board or upon
the Retirement (as defined in the next sentence) of the Non-employee Director.    For any Director Option granted before June 9, 2000, "Retirement" means a
Non-employee Director's termination of service as a member of the Board after age 70 or a designation by the Board, in its discretion, of such termination as a Retirement irrespective of a
Director's age. For any Director Option granted on or after June 9, 2000, "Retirement" means a Non-employee Director's termination of service as a member of the Board on or after
the date on which the Non-employee Director's age plus service as a member of the Board equals or exceeds 62, provided that the Non-employee Director is at least age 50, and
has served as a member of the Board for at least six years, or if the Board in its discretion, designates such termination as a Retirement irrespective of such Director's age and/or service."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized officer of the Company has executed this Second Amendment as of the 9th day of February, 2004.

| | APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.
| | ----------------------------
| | By:                         
| | Its:                        

---

QuickLinks
#### Bell et al., Appellants, *v.*Scranton Trust Company.

*Trusts and trustees*— Corporate *toan*— Mortgage *to trustee as security*— Failure *to insure premises*— Destruction *by fire*— Liability *of trustee*— Contracts—Construction.

Where a corporation executed a mortgage to a trust company to secure the payment of a bond issue, and thereafter the property of *29the corporation was destroyed by fire, and an action was brought by a committee of the bondholders of the corporation against the trust company for its failure to enforce an alleged covenant in the mortgage as to fire insurance, a rule for judgment was properly discharged, where it appeared that the covenant declared upon did not appear in the mortgage, and that the mortgage expressly provided “it is further covenanted and agreed that trustee phall not _......incur any liability by reason of any loss arising from failure of the (mortgagor) to keep the mortgaged premises......insured.”

Argued Feb. 26,1918.

Appeal, No. 357, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., May T., 1917, No. 82, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of J. C. Bell, W. B. Schaeffer, O. F. Reinhard, Henry W. Dunning and S. B. Earns, a committee for the protection of the bondholders of the Rohr McHenry Distilling Company, to the use of all bondholders entitled, v. The Scranton Trust Co.

Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit against trustee for failure to enforce the covenants of a corporation mortgage. ■ Before New-comb, J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The lower court entered an order dismissing plaintiffs’ rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in dismissing the rule for judgment.

*Mulford Morris*and *A. L. Williams,*for appellants.

*H. A. Knapp,*of *Knapp, O’Malley, Hill and Harris,*with him *F. W. Wheaton,*and *O’Brien & Kelly,*for appellee.

March 18, 1918:

Per Curiam,

The Rohr McHenry Distilling Company executed a *30mortgage to The Scranton Trust Company, as trustee, to secure the payment of an issue of bonds. The property of the distilling company was destroyed by fire, and this action was brought by a committee of the bondholders against the trust company for its failure to' enforce an alleged covenant of the distilling company in the mortgage as to fire insurance. The cause of action, as set forth in the statement of claim, is upon said alleged covenant, but judgment was refused by the court below for the reason that the covenant declared upon is not to be found in the mortgage. This is true, and it may be added that the following covenant appears in the same: “And it is further covenanted and agreed that trustee shall not, nor shall any future trustee or trustees incur any liability by reason of any loss arising from failure of the distilling company to keep the mortgaged premises and the bonded whiskey insured as herein provided.” The discharge of the rule for judgment is affirmed.
50245.

#### DILLARD v. THE STATE.

Evans, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of possession of non-tax-paid liquor. She was sentenced to serve 12 months, probated on certain conditions, including payment of a fine of $500. Motion for new trial was denied and defendant appeals. *Held:*

1. White liquor was found in dishwater in a dishpan in defendant’s kitchen immediately upon entry by the police officers with a search warrant. Several of the officers testified and gave their opinion as experts. They swore they could recognize contraband liquor from legal liquor and that this was illegal liquor. In addition, there was a strong smell of illegal liquor in the room, and several plastic jugs were found in the kitchen strongly smelling of contraband or illegal liquor, commonly called "moonshine.” This evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to convict the defendant of possession of nontax-paid liquor. None of the enumerations of error complaining of the sufficiency of the evidence is meritorious.

2. Defendant’s counsel contends that all of the state’s witnesses smelled of a container with "Georgia Moon” therein, after the seal was broken, and that the *721nontax-paid liquor smelled "something like that.” This testimony does not measure up to that in the cited case of *Bryant v. State,*101 Ga. App. 243 (3) (113 SE2d 225), wherein the state’s witnesses testified that the alleged nontax-paid whiskey "could have possibly been taxpaid whiskey.” No container of "Georgia Moon” was offered in evidence and there was no proof that legal tax-paid liquor was opened in the presence of the jury, and the witnesses were testifying as to its smell.

Submitted February 11, 1975

Decided April 7, 1975

Rehearing denied May 8, 1975.

*Tom Strickland,*for appellant.

*Cíete D. Johnson, District Attorney,*for appellee.

3. The search warrant and affidavit in support thereof were identified by the deputy sheriff and were allowed in evidence. Defendant objected because same was hearsay, immaterial and irrelevant, and if the affidavit was not expunged, it would put the defendant’s character into issue. The objections made are too general and vague to constitute reversible error. See *Pippin v. State,*205 Ga. 316 (6) (53 SE2d 482); *Smith v. Smith,*223 Ga. 560, 561 (156 SE2d 901).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen,P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.*
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Nebraska adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Thomas D.

Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1963

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Mark E. Pulsifer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 4, 1998

 Filed: September 10, 1998 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Pulsifer was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He moved to suppress the firearm, but the district

court denied the motion after a hearing. Pulsifer then entered a conditional plea of 1
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District 2

of Nebraska. 

-2-

guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ 2

supervised release. Pulsifer now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.

We review that ruling de novo but we review findings of historical fact only for

clear error. See United States v. Weinbender, 109 F.3d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir. 1997).

At the suppression hearing, police officers Bradley Wood and Thomas Payne testified

that they had responded to a call from Pulsifer&s residence regarding a possible

domestic disturbance. Wood was aware that Pulsifer had been convicted for assaulting

a police officer. While they were en route, the dispatcher informed the officers that a

woman at the house had advised that firearms and drugs were present there. When the

officers arrived at Pulsifer&s house, Wood observed Pulsifer exit his back door carrying

a long-barreled firearm. Pulsifer disappeared briefly behind a shed near his house;

when he reappeared, he was no longer carrying a firearm. After Pulsifer&s arrest, Payne

approached the shed, bent down, and shined a flashlight underneath it. Payne observed

a firearm lying in the space between the shed and the ground, and a third officer

reached under the shed and retrieved the firearm.

Based on this evidence, we conclude the district court did not err in denying

Pulsifer&s motion to suppress. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 740 (1983) (officer&s

change of body position to see better is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis);

United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1995) (elements of “plain view”

doctrine; officer&s use of flashlight does not affect analysis); United States v. Hughes,

940 F.2d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir. 1991) (“discovery of evidence in plain view need not be

inadvertent”).

The judgment is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60868 Summary Calendar

GUIFEN HU , Petitioner

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 603 756

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Guifen Hu is a native and citizen of China who entered this country legally but overstayed. She petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the i mmigration j udg e’s (IJ’s) determination that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because she was not

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60868 Document: 00513967529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2017N o. 15

- 60868

2 credible. She argues that she can explain the discrepancies and omissions that
resulted in t he adverse credibility finding and asserts her entitlement to relief. We “review only the BIA’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on” that decision. Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).
We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief under the substantial evidence standard. See Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1 134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang , 569 F.3d at 537

. An adverse credibility determination may be supported by “ any inconsistency o r omission,” provided that “the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Id. at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of the record as a whole shows that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue whether Hu was credible. See id. at 537

- 40

. As Hu has not presented credible evidence showing that she is entitled to asylum, she has not shown that she is entitled to withholding of rem oval or relief under the CAT

. See Dayo v. Holder , 687 F .3d 653, 658

- 59 (5th Cir. 2012)

. Consequently, her petition for review is DENIED. Case: 15-60868 Document: 00513967529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2017
Exhibit
      32.1








**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 annual report of Majestic Oil & Gas Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
      Montalban, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify to the best of my knowledge, 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)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




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







/s/
      Patrick Montalban





Patrick
      Montalban


Chief
      Executive Officer


Chief
      Financial Officerz




August 
      18, 2007
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tony TEAGUE.

No. 87 KA 1224.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1987.

Bryan Bush, Dist. Atty., Office of the Dist. Atty., Baton Rouge by Mike Erwin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff/appellee.

Luke Lavergne, Baton Rouge, for defendant/ appellant.

Before GROVER L. COVINGTON, C.J., and SAVOIE and LeBLANC, JJ.

SAVOIE, Judge.

This court *ex proprio motu*dismisses this appeal as untimely.

Defendant was charged with simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62. He pled guilty and was later sentenced on May 8, 1987. No oral motion for appeal appears of record in either the minute entries or transcript of sentencing. A written motion for appeal was filed on June 11, 1987, and granted on June 23, 1987.

A motion for appeal “must be made no later than 5 days after the rendition of the judgment or ruling from which the appeal is taken.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 914. Defendant's motion for appeal is obviously late, the time for filing the motion for appeal having expired on May 13, 1987.

We note that Defendant may seek an out-of-time appeal via application for post-conviction relief. *See State v. Counterman,*475 So.2d 336 (La.1985).

For the above and foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR EQUIVALENT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,**

**CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DRAXIS Health Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report of Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: March 31, 2006 |                                  |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                  | /s/ Martin Barkin                     |   |
|                  | Martin Barkin, M.D.                   |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as separate disclosure document.

 

----
#### Willie Lee WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and ESIS c/o INA, Appellees.

No. BP-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1987.

Michael P. Falkowski, of Michael P. Fal-kowski, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

F. Bradley Hassell, of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

WENTWORTH, J., concurs with written opinion.

WENTWORTH, Judge,

concurring.

The wage loss offset based on deemed earnings is affirmable upon the evidence before the deputy, covering months immediately following the date on which the deputy found claimant’s “voluntary termination of his employment with the School Board was not justified.” The order, however, is overbroad insofar as it concludes that because of the voluntary termination “the carrier became entitled to use his deemed earnings in computing his wage loss thereafter” without limitation. The *672determination of causal relation between the injury and ensuing wagé loss clearly remains a fact issue subject to evaluation of work search and other applicable burdens and presumptions for each month following such voluntary limitation. Section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes. *Johnston v. Super Food Services,*461 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); *The Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Perri,*508 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2396 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2396

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 
                1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 
                1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino)-.

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

SECTION 1. 9,10-ANTHRACENEDIONE, 1,8-DIHYDROXY-4-NITRO-5-
              (PHENYLAMINO)-.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.51 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8-
dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino)-) is amended by striking ``12/31/
2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. Julio A. RIEPELE v. TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 88-KH-2566.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Riepele, Julio; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, Nos. 87-2809, 87-2810; to *891the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-KH-0599.

Denied.