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

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>

Castelle and Subsidiaries                                           Exhibit 27.1
Financial Data Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Financial  Statements for the twelve month period ending December 31,
1998 included in the  Company's  Form 10-K filed March 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1,000
       
<S>                                                       <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                     3,924
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              4,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                               (720)
<INVENTORY>                                                3,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          11,658
<PP&E>                                                     1,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (1,102)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            12,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      4,895
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  29,255
<OTHER-SE>                                              (21,754)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              12,494
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          21,746
<CGS>                                                     11,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             11,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          15,341
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         (174)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (3,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             (3,965)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (7,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (7,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (1.67)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

t1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

145847

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145847

COA: 309770 

Wayne CC: 11-007488-FH

KENNETH LEBRON EDWARDS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
exv10w1



 











EXHIBIT 10.1




March 23, 2005




Sam Cowley

2136 E Goldenrod Street

Phoenix, AZ 85044



Re: Hiring Specifications



Dear Mr. Cowley:


You have been offered the position of General Counsel with Swift Transportation, Co., Inc. We have
offered you the following compensation package:





	 	•  	$325,000.00 annual salary
	 
	 	•  	50% target bonus based on performance
	 
	 	•  	$100,000.00 sign-on bonus to be paid upon hire. In the event that your
employment is terminated, you will repay the sign-on bonus to the company as
follows:






	 	•  	If you voluntarily terminate your employment within
the first 12 months of employment, you will repay 100%
	 
	 	•  	If you voluntarily terminate your employment 13 to 24
months from your date of hire, you will repay 66%,
	 
	 	•  	If you voluntarily terminate your employment 25 to 36
months from your date of hire, you will repay 33%






	 	•  	$700.00 monthly car allowance
	 
	 	•  	100,000 stock options will be granted upon hire






	 	•  	20% will vest each year
	 
	 	•  	100% vested in 5 years






	 	•  	20,000 annual target stock options based on performance
	 
	 	•  	3 weeks of vacation
	 
	 	•  	Eighteen months of severance, based on salary, will be guaranteed if your
employment is terminated unless the reason is for gross misconduct




This offer is contingent upon Negative Substance Abuse Screening Test results for controlled
substances, job related reference checks, and a pre-employment physical (if required) taken prior
to reporting to work.



If the above terms are acceptable, please sign this form on the line indicated below and return it
to Barbara Kennedy. Your start date will be April 18, 2005.



We welcome you as new member to our Company!



Sincerely,



 



 




Jerry Moyes

Chairman & CEO



Received and acceptable:                                          Date                     




2200 S. 75th Avenue • Phoenix, AZ 85043

(602) 269-9700 (800) 800-2200
|                                                            |   |   |                                                                            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/      G. Richard Smith                                       |   |   | /s/      Gary R.      Smith                                                     |
| G.      Richard SmithPresident      and Chief Executive Officer |   |   | Gary      R.      SmithSecretary/Treasurer      andChief      Financial Officer |
|  Date:      February 22, 2010                              |   |   |  Date:      February 22, 2010                                              |

----

| This      certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and      Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States      Code, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of      the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.      This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,      except as otherwise stated in suchfiling. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

                                  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 Quarterly  Report of Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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.



Date:  November 4, 2004

                                                 /s/ Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                 President, C.E.O. and Director
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Bumgardner 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

ROBERT D. MIMM 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1054-97-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 JUNE 2, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY 

Willis A. Woods, Judge Designate 

 Jonathon M. Venzie for appellant. 

 Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney 

General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General; 

Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 The defendant was charged with assault and battery of his 

daughter. A jury convicted him after a trial at which he 

appeared pro se. He argues that the trial court erred in holding 

him in contempt in front of the jury and in not instructing the 

jury on self-defense. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 The statement of facts only reveals that the defendant was 

found in contempt of court in the presence of the jury. After 

the jury was out of the courtroom deliberating, the court imposed 

a sentence of five days in jail for the contempt. The trial 

court later suspended this. The defendant failed to state an 

objection to the contempt citation and did not ask the court to 

take any corrective action. The record does not provide any 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

indication of what happened to cause the court to cite the 

defendant for contempt except that it happened in open court. 

 In order to be considered on appeal, an objection must be 

timely made and the grounds stated with specificity. Rule 5A:18. 

 To be timely, an objection must be made when the occasion 

arises--at the time the evidence is offered or the statement 

made. Marlowe v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 619, 621, 347 S.E.2d 

167, 168 (1986) (citing Ingram v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 335, 

341, 338 S.E.2d 657, 660 (1985)). In order to apply the "ends of 

justice" exception the record must show that there has been a 

miscarriage of justice. See Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 

433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). If an insufficient record 

is furnished, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed. See

White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1995). 

 The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing 

to give a self-defense instruction to the jury. He did not 

preserve this issue for appeal and is therefore barred by Rule 

5A:18. Further, the record reveals no evidence that the 

defendant was in any fear or danger. The trial judge 

specifically ruled that "there was absolutely no evidence on 

which to base" a self-defense instruction, and the record fully 

supports that ruling. "A defendant is entitled to have the jury 

instructed only on those theories of the case that are supported 

by the evidence." Frye v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 370, 388, 345 

S.E.2d 267, 280 (1986). 
 -3- 

 Finding no error, we affirm. 

Affirmed.
April 1, 2002


Via Federal Express

LaSalle National Bank, as Trustee	LaSalle National Bank, as Paying Agent
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1625	135 South LaSalle Street, Suite, 1625
Chicago, Illinois 60674	Chicago, Illinois 60674
Attention: Asset-Backed Securities	Attention: Asset-Backed Securities Trust
Trust Services-Bear Stearns Commercial	Services-Bear Stearns Commercial
Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 1999-Cl	Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 1999-Cl

Moody's Investors Service, Inc., as Rating	Standard & Poor's Ratings Group, as Rating
Agency	Agency
99 Church Street	25 Broadway
New York, NY 10007	New York, NY 10004
Attention: Commercial Mortgage	Attention: Commercial Mortgage
Surveillance Group	Surveillance Manager

GECC, as Directing Certificateholder	Bear Steams Commercial Mortgage
125 Park Avenue, 1 Wh Floor	Securities, Inc., as Depositor
New York, NY 100 17	245 Park Avenue
Attention: Dan Vinson	New York, NY 10167
	Attention: James G. Reichek

Re:	Annual Statement as to Compliance
	Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
	1999-Cl

In accordance with Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement dated as of February 1, 1999, entered into in connection with the above-referenced Certificates, the undersigned officer of GEMSA Loan Services, L.P., successor by merger to GE Capital Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer") hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Servicer for the preceding calendar year and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision, (ii) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has maintained an effective internal control system relating to its servicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year, and (iii) the Servicer has received no notice regarding qualification, or challenging the status of either the Lower-Tier REMIC or the Upper-Tier REMIC as a REMIC from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body.


..1500 City West Boulevard, Suite 200 - Houston, TX 77042 - (713) 458-7200 - (800) 456-1443




LaSalle National Bank
March 28, 2002
Page 2
Pat McEntee, Director, Portfolio Management, on behalf of GEMSA Loan Services, L.P., successor by merger to GE Capital Loan Services, Inc., in its capacity as Servicer
20020ffCert.130.doc
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4683 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the NTAP period 

under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and the passthrough period under the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2017 

Mr. REICHERT (for himself, Ms. DELBENE, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Ms. 

SEWELL of Alabama, and Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise 

the NTAP period under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and the pass-through period under 

the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4683 IH

1 SECTION 1. REVISION TO NTAP PERIOD UNDER IPPS AND 

2 PASS-THROUGH PERIOD UNDER OPPS FOR 

3 NEW DRUGS AND DEVICES. 

4 (a) REVISION TO NTAP PERIOD UNDER IPPS.— 

5 Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(K)(ii)(II)) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘not less than two years and not more than three 

8 years’’ and inserting ‘‘five years’’. 

9 (b) REVISION TO PASS-THROUGH PERIOD UNDER

10 OPPS.—Section 1833(t)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 

11 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(6)) is amended— 

12 (1) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ‘‘at 

13 least 2 years, but not more than 3 years’’ and in14 serting ‘‘5 years’’; and 

15 (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ‘‘at least 

16 2 years, but not more than 3 years’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘5 years’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2008327EN.01004301.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/43

---

Action brought on 17 October 2008 — Cerafogli v ECB

(Case F-84/08)

(2008/C 327/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for an order requiring the ECB to pay compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of discrimination connected with her trade union activities

Form of order sought

| — | Order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, corresponding, first, to the difference between the salary received by the applicant and the salary for band H, step 54 between 2004 and 2007, that is to say, 23 additional steps and, secondly, to the grant of a bonus of EUR 3 500 per year in respect of 2001, 2002 and 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, corresponding, first, to the difference between the salary received by the applicant and the salary for band H, step 54 between 2004 and 2007, that is to say, 23 additional steps and, secondly, to the grant of a bonus of EUR 3 500 per year in respect of 2001, 2002 and 2003;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 157 000 or, in the alternative, the sum of EUR 45 000 to compensate for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 157 000 or, in the alternative, the sum of EUR 45 000 to compensate for non-material damage;

| — | Annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of 25 June 2008 rejecting the application for pre-litigation review and the decision of 7 August 2008 rejecting the complaint, in so far as those decisions relate to the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of 25 June 2008 rejecting the application for pre-litigation review and the decision of 7 August 2008 rejecting the complaint, in so far as those decisions relate to the present action;

| — | Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

---
Allocation 

## Alloc Group YEARMADE WINTER SUMMER WINTER SUMMER WINTER SUMMER 

## Station Group

1 1,2 7% 93% 97% 3% 88% 12% 1 14 3 thru 6 7% 93% 98% 2% 89% 11% 2 9

7,8 6% 94% 98% 2% 89% 11% 3 5 9 thru 16 6% 94% 98% 2% 87% 13% 4 6 2 1,2 8% 92% 99% 1% 85% 15% 5 17 3 thru 6 8% 92% 99% 1% 86% 14% 6 1

7,8 5% 95% 99% 1% 83% 17% 7 11 9 thru 16 4% 96% 99% 1% 84% 16% 8 2 3 1,2 9% 91% 98% 2% 86% 14% 9 1 3 thru 6 9% 91% 99% 1% 89% 11% 10 9

7,8 9% 91% 99% 1% 87% 13% 11 13 9 thru 16 10% 90% 99% 1% 84% 16% 12 3 4 1,2 15% 85% 98% 2% 73% 27% 13 3 3 thru 6 14% 86% 99% 1% 74% 26% 1413

7,8 12% 88% 99% 1% 72% 28% 15 11 9 thru 16 12% 88% 99% 1% 67% 33% 1611 5 1,2 16% 84% 99% 1% 78% 22% 17 15 3 thru 6 16% 84% 99% 1% 79% 21% 18 13

7,8 12% 88% 99% 1% 73% 27% 1919 9 thru 16 11% 89% 99% 1% 75% 25% 2010 6 1,2 46% 54% 100% 0% 50% 50% 21 16 3 thru 6 44% 56% 100% 0% 47% 53% 22 7

7,8 44% 56% 100% 0% 45% 55% 23 12 9 thru 1644% 56% 100% 0% 45% 55% 2415 7 1,2 21% 79% 99% 1% 72% 28% 25 19 3 thru 6 17% 83% 100% 0% 74% 26% 2616

7,8 17% 83% 100% 0% 62% 38% 27 11 9 thru 16 16% 84% 100% 0% 62% 38% 28 10 8 1,2 18% 82% 100% 0% 56% 44% 29 6 3 thru 6 15% 85% 100% 0% 54% 46% 30 4

7,8 14% 86% 100% 0% 50% 50% 31 2 9 thru 16 13% 87% 100% 0% 52% 48% 3211 9 1,2 32% 68% 99% 1% 55% 45% 33 7 3 thru 6 29% 71% 99% 1% 52% 48% 34 2

7,8 26% 74% 99% 1% 47% 53% 35 15 9 thru 1625% 75% 99% 1% 48% 52% 36 8 10 1,2 29% 71% 100% 0% 45% 55% 37 1 3 thru 6 23% 77% 100% 0% 36% 64% 38 16

7,8 20% 80% 100% 0% 32% 68% 3913 9 thru 1620% 80% 100% 0% 32% 68% 4013 11 1,2 2% 98% 90% 10% 87% 13% 41 11 3 thru 6 2% 98% 91% 9% 89% 11% 4219

7,8 2% 98% 93% 7% 88% 12% 43 18 9 thru 16 1% 99% 93% 7% 89% 11% 4416 12 1,2 29% 71% 93% 7% 80% 20% 45 8 3 thru 6 34% 66% 93% 7% 84% 16% 46 8

7,8 42% 58% 92% 8% 81% 19% 9 thru 1644% 56% 92% 8% 82% 18% Seasonal Allocation Factors Cooling Only Heating Only Heating & Cooling
# C_2008247EN.01001702.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

---

Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Fidelio KG v OHIM

(Case T-286/08)

(2008/C 247/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Fidelio KG (Linz, Austria) (represented by M. Gail, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2008 (case R 632/2007-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2008 (case R 632/2007-4);

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs as well as those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs as well as those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Hallux’ for goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 (Application No 5 245 147).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the registered marks concerning the goods ‘orthopaedic article’ and ‘footwear’ do not present any absolute grounds for refusal.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---