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


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         3,059
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         4,276
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   89,697
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        89,638
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          89,638
<LOANS>                                      449,445
<ALLOWANCE>                                    4,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               606,138
<DEPOSITS>                                   423,389
<SHORT-TERM>                                 138,125
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3,797
<LONG-TERM>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          50
<OTHER-SE>                                    40,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               606,138
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               37,590
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              8,232
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               2,523
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              48,345
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            23,897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            31,629
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         16,716
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  891
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  8.21
<LOANS-NON>                                    4,126
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               3,968
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     60
<RECOVERIES>                                     332
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              4,390
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        4,390
        


</TABLE>
2nd Amendment to employment agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.9(hh) 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This SECOND AMENDMENT is made by and between PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. (“PSA” or
“Company”), a Delaware corporation, and JAMES M. MCNEILL (“Executive”), and individual residing in the State of Georgia. 
  
 WHEREAS, Executive and PSA previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of May 1, 1999, as amended and restated on
November 7, 2002 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Executive and PSA desire to further amend certain terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4(c) of the Employment Agreement is amended by deleting the paragraph and replacing it with the following: 

  
 (c) During the Term, the Company shall provide for the Executive’s use
of a Company automobile of a value not to exceed forty thousand dollars ($40,000) and shall pay reasonable and appropriate maintenance, insurance and operating expenses and applicable taxes related thereto (including but not limited to income, sales
and use taxes). If the Company and the Executive so agree, the Executive may elect not to use a Company automobile as set forth above, and in such event the Company shall pay to the Executive during the Term an allowance in the amount of five
hundred fifty dollars ($550.00) per month, together with reimbursement of the reasonable expenses incurred by the Executive for fuel, oil, tires and routine maintenance in connection with the use of the Executive’s own automobile. 

 

	 	2.	Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding a new section 4(e) as follows: 

  
 (e) The Company shall reimburse the Executive for reasonable business and social activities including but not limited to
expenses incurred with respect to approved memberships in professional organizations and a sporting or country club. 
  

	 	3.	Except as specifically amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day, month and year first
set forth below each parties’ signature. 
  

							
	JAMES M. McNEILL	 	 	 	PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.
				
	/s/    James M. McNeill        	 	 	 	BY:	 	/s/    Daniel J. Kohl        
	  
 DATE:    7/29/05
	 	 	 	         Authorized Signature
  
 NAME:   Daniel J. Kohl, President and CEO
  
 DATE:    7/29/05
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Comments should be received on or before April 30, 2012 to be assured of consideration.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* and (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 11020, Washington, DC 20220, or on-line at *www.PRAComment.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at *PRA@treasury.gov,* or the entire information collection request maybe found at *www.reginfo.gov.*

## Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)

*OMB Number:* 1520-0001.

*Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection.

*Title:* Owner's Affidavit of Partial Destruction of Mutilated Currency.

*Form:* BEP 5283.

*Abstract:* The Office of Currency Standards, Bureau of Engraving & Printing, requests owners of partially destroyed U.S. currency to complete a notarized affidavit (BEP 5283) for each claim submitted when substantial portions of notes are missing.

*Affected Public:* Individuals or Households.

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 90.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-7523 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4840-01-P
CQB 20 1 0 LLC

,
Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0241

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Charles O. Mitchell, Jr., Sr. , Judge.

Alexandra M. Amador and Michael J. McCabe of McCabe Law Group, P.A., Ponte Vedra Beach

, for Appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace and Diane G. DeWolf of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, and William P. Heller of Akerman LLP, Ft. Lauderdale

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and MAKAR

, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Paul Kim, 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, that to my knowledge:

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.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: November 3, 2009



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL KIM                                
|Paul Kim                                    
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 31.1

302(a) CERTIFICATIONS



I, Cindy K. Swank, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of APD Antiquities, Inc.;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and we have:



a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.



5.  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)  all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2006

/s/ Cindy K. Swank



Cindy K. Swank, President

Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer
#### GOVERNING BOARD OF the ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. LAKE PICKETT LIMITED, etc., Appellee.

No. 88-1605.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 1, 1989.

Wayne E. Flowers, Atty. for St. Johns River Water Management Dist., Palatka, for appellant.

Dominick J. Salfi of Dominick J. Salfi, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

Appellant Water Management District recovered a judgment1 imposing a mone*884tary civil penalty against appellee developer but the trial court denied appellant’s post-judgment motion to tax court costs and assess investigative costs and attorney’s fees which denial is the subject of this appeal.

Section 373.129, Florida Statutes, authorizes water management districts to commence and maintain proper and necessary actions and proceedings in court for certain purposes including in subparagraph (6) investigative costs, court costs, and attorney’s fees.

Appellant looks through section 373.-129(6), Florida Statutes, which permits the pursuit of proper legal action, to section 57.041, Florida Statutes, which provides that “[t]he party recovering judgment shall recover all his legal costs and charges which shall be included in the judgment” and argues that section 57.041 mandates that every party who recovers a judgment in a legal proceeding is entitled as a matter of right to recover lawful court costs and that a trial judge has no discretion under that statute to deny court costs to the party recovering judgment. We agree and reverse with directions that if appellant finally recovers judgment against appellee, appellant’s lawful court costs and charges be included in the judgment. The appealed order is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

1

. The judgment is the subject of a separate appeal.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Robert Houghtaling, Appellant.

County Court, County of Columbia,

January 29, 1959.

*Michael Le Sawyer*for appellant.

*John N. McLaren, District Attorney,*for respondent.

*460. William E. J. Connor, J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction of the crime of assault in the third degree. The complaining witness, a State trooper, testified that between 4:30 and 4:35, while he was patrolling on Route 9 in the County of Columbia, he saw two cars and it looked like both cars were speeding. He told one of the cars to pull over to the side of the road. He asked the driver for his registration and at the time he noticed a rifle stock sticking out from the back of the car. He reached into the back of the car to check the rifle to see if it was loaded or not and at that time the defendant started to push and accuse him of having no right to get in the car and no right to check anything without his permission.

It is contended by the defendant that the action of the defendant in pushing and striking the complaining witness was not unlawful in that in doing so he was attempting to prevent an offense against his person, or a trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in his lawful possession, in that the trooper violated section 8 of the Civil Rights Law in an attempt to examine the rifle to determine whether or not it was loaded without first obtaining a search warrant.

“ While [automobiles are] a possession in the sense of private ownership, they are but a vehicle constructed for travel and transportation on the highways. Their active use is not in homes or on private premises, the privacy of which the law especially guards from search and seizure without process.” *(People*v. *Case,*220 Mich. 379, 388.)

I believe it to be fundamental that a search may be made without a warrant, especially to determine whether or not a rifle in an automobile is loaded when a trooper has stopped a vehicle to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. To hold that under the circumstances an officer must first obtain a warrant, would be almost to scrap all efforts to enforce the criminal law of the State.

Judgment of conviction appealed from should be affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GIGERE JACKSON,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 283, 2023

§ 

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1707014544 (N)

§ 

§

§ 

 

Submitted: October 9, 2023

Decided: December 19, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 

affirm, and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment below should 

be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons cited by the Superior Court in its July 

18, 2023 order denying the appellant’s motion for correction of an illegal sentence.1 

Absent plain error, which we do not find here, we decline to consider the arguments 

that the appellant raises for the first time on appeal.2

1

State v. Jackson, 2023 WL 4614534 (Del. Super. Ct. July 18, 2023).

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 283 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 283

  To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to intervene in the name of the 
  Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on the 
      Judiciary in United States of America v. Northwest Airlines 
                          Corporation, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2000

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to intervene in the name of the 
  Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on the 
      Judiciary in United States of America v. Northwest Airlines 
                          Corporation, et al.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Northwest Airlines Corporation, et al., 
        Misc. No. 99-424, pending in the United States District Court for the 
        District of Columbia, defendant Northwest Airlines, by seeking to compel 
        the production of documents of the United States General Accounting 
        Office, has placed in issue the privileges of the United States Senate 
        under the Speech or Debate Clause, art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1, of the United 
        States Constitution; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of the Ethics in 
        Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(c), 288e(a), and 288l(a), the 
        Senate may direct its counsel to intervene in the name of a committee of 
        the Senate in any legal action in which the powers and responsibilities 
        of Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to intervene in 
the name of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary in the case of United States v. Northwest 
Airlines Corporation, et al., to protect the Senate's privileges under 
the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matters of: 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Declaration 

(Confidential Order) 

I have read the administrative law judge's Order of October 18, 2012, sealing the exhibits and 

transcript in the above proceeding. I understand that the Initial Decision in this case is 

subject to the same restrictions. 

Per paragraph 4 of the October 18,2012 Order, I agree to be bound and abide by its tem1s. 

Nancy Marsh . 

FAA Engii\eer 

RECFI\IED 

MAY 2 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

!hereby certify that the foregoing Declaration has been served via facsimile and regular mail 

this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2139 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WJ 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

DATED this 21st day of May, 20!3. 

Dana Stephenson 

' ! 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Fedeml Aviation Administration· 

1601 Lind Ave_ SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2164
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIALREPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 to which this certificationis being furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.  This certification is provided solely pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), and the Exchange Act.  Inaccordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shallnot be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actor the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date:  May 11, 2009** | ** **                                               |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ Dale B.  Herbst                                      |
|                         | Name: Dale B.  Herbst                                    |
|                         | Title: Chief  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

1

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Q'Max America. Inc., d/b/a Q' Max America Solutions, Inc., d/b/a 

Q'Max Solutions, d/b/a Q'Max Solutions, Inc. v. Screen Logix, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-15-00319-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-05002

Trial court: 125th District Court of Harris County

The court reporter’s request for an extension to file the record is GRANTED, IN PART. 

The court reporter’s record is due within 7 days of the date of this order, with no further 

extensions.

This is an accelerated appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.04(a)(4) (West 2015). Therefore, the court reporter’s record was 

originally due ten (10) days from the date of the notice of appeal, which was filed on April 1, 

2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 16, 2015