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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,062
<PP&E>                                              18
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (3)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,090
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,789)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,588
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    67
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.6)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.4)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-225-CR

	NO. 2-03-226-CR

PATRICK CREAMER	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	Appellant Patrick Creamer is attempting to appeal from his convictions for indecency with a child by contact and attempted indecency with a child by contact.  On July 1, 2003, we notified appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeals because the notices of appeal were untimely.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), 26.2(a), 26.3.  Appellant has not responded to our jurisdiction letter or otherwise stated grounds for continuing the appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	CAYCE, C.J.; DAY and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 14, 2003
See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen de nyi ng r el i ef , t he c our t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ).

R el at oral so f i l ed a “ M ot i on f or Suspensi on of O per at i on ofR ul es, ” seeki ng p er m i ssi on t o f i l e f ewer 2 copi es of

hi s pet i t i on forwr i t of m andam us. W e G R AN T t hi s m ot i on. 

### NUM BER 13-1 0-00 073- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG IN RE JOSE RA M IRO GA RC IA GON ZA LE S On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Rel ator , J ose Rami ro Garc ia Gonz ale s, pro se, f il ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus in the abo v e cau se on Februa ry 19, 20 10, through w hich he seeks to co mp el the trial court to r ule on rela tor ’s req uestfor d ocument s t hat a re “ n e ces sar y to file his 11.0 7 habea s cor pus. ” Ac cordin g to re lat or , he is att empti ng to fi le h is se co n d appl ic ati on for w ri t of

2 habeas co rp us. SeeT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11 .07 , § 4 (Verno n Sup p. 20 09).2

Ar ti cl e 11. 07 prov ide s t he ex cl usi v e means fo r an i ncarcerated ind iv idu al to chal len g e a final felony co nv icti on i n non- death penal ty ca ses . See i

d. , § 5. Jur is dicti on to grant po st-conviction hab eas co rpus relief f rom a f inal felon y

co nviction rests ex clusiv ely w ith the court of crimina l a ppe als. See Bd. of Pa rdon s & Paroles ex rel. Ke ene v. Court of Appeal

s for Ei ghth Di st. , 910 S.W .2d 4 81, 4 83 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ; Hoa ng v . St ate , 872 S. W .2d 6 94, 6 97 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993); In r e McAf ee , 5 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 1 5 , 7 1 8 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 1, or ig . proceed ing ) (“Ar ti cl e 11. 07 c ontai ns no ro le for the cour ts of appeal s; the o nly co urts re ferred to are the co nv icti ng co urt and the Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls . Sh o u ld a n appli cantfind i t nec ess ar y to compl ain aboutan a cti on or inactio n of

the con v icting court, the ap p li c a n tm a y seek m and am us relief f rom th e Court of Crim in a l Appeal s.” ); see als o T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 11.07, § 5 (“After conv icti on th e procedu re outl ine d i n thi s A ct shal l be ex cl usi v e and any othe r proceed ing shall be v oid an d of

no force an d ef

fect in discha rg ing the prisone r.”); T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us, i s o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t w e l a c k j u r i s d i ct i o n o v e r t h i s o r i g i n a l p ro c e e d i n g . A c c o rd i n g l y , t he peti ti on for w ri t of manda mus is DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8( a)

. P E RC U R I A M Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2(b). Deliv ered and f iled the 23rd day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.
EXHIBIT 10.17




The following form of agreement was executed by The Ohio Valley Bank Company and each of the following directors on the dates indicated beside their names:







	
Name

	 	
Date of Agreement


	 	 	 
	
David W. Thomas

	 	
December 20, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Harold A. Howe

	 	
December 13, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Thomas E. Wiseman

	 	
December 13, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Anna P. Barnitz

	 	
December 13, 2016


	 	 	 
	
Brent A. Saunders

	 	
December 13, 2016















2016 DETERMINATION OF DIRECTOR'S FEES


 


FOR PURPOSES OF THE DIRECTOR DEFERRED FEE AGREEMENT


FOR _____________







THIS AGREEMENT is made this ______ day of December, 2016, by and between THE OHIO VALLEY BANK COMPANY located in Gallipolis, Ohio (the "Company"), and _________  (the "Director").


 


The Company and the Director entered into a DEFERRED FEE AGREEMENT most recently amended on ___________ (the "Agreement").


 


The Director agrees that the definition of "Fees" in Section 1.10 be amended to read as follows effective for deferrals on or after January 1, 2017:







1.10 "Fees" means the total annual board retainer and monthly fees paid to all directors, earned by the Director during a Plan Year.  For purposes of clarity, Fees does not include any lead director fees, committee meeting or chair fees or other special director fees.







The parties, by executing this Agreement hereby agree to the terms stated herein. 







 


	
DIRECTOR:

	 	
THE OHIO VALLEY BANK COMPANY


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	
By:

	 
	 	 	
 


Title:
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30787

Summary Calendar

The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus Acceptance Insurance Co., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(99-CV-99–F)

January 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This case conc erns which insurers are obligated to pay

c overage for an accident that occurred at the Morial Conv ention

Center in New Orleans. Acceptance Insurance appeals from an order

of the district court that both the Aetna policy and Acceptance’s

policy are primary, and should share jointly in paying coverage.

Having reviewed the briefs and the reco rd, we are convinced

that the district court judgment is correct and should be upheld.

Aetna is not attempting to subrogate into the rights of its2

insured, nor to seek contribution from its insured, nor to assert

any policy defenses. Rather, Aetna is suing to enforce the terms

of its insurance policy and Acceptance’s policy, which both provide

primary coverage on these facts. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,864
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,001
<PP&E>                                          79,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,480
<BONDS>                                          3,493
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,413
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,584
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,895
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (8,710)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,066)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.61)


</TABLE>
#### M.H. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATAPSCO PARK ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-2165.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

M.H. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

M.H. Alexander appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Alexander v. Patapsco Park Assoc.,*No. *141CA-02-2320-MJG (D.Md. Aug. 29, 2002). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,411
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,976
<PP&E>                                         133,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,688
<BONDS>                                         23,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,363
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  177,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,393
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,291
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6733
HERMAN L. MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; JOHN JABE, Warden; JERRY KILGORE, Director, Public Safety, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-96-94) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman L. Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the filing fee order. Finding no reversible error, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.50

Promissory Note, dated December 10, 1999, between ICG Telecom Group, Inc. and
                                  John Kane.

<PAGE>

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$80,000                                                      Englewood, Colorado

                                                             December 10, 1999

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned John Kane ("Maker") promises to pay
to the order of ICG Telecom Group, Inc., its successors or assigns ("Holder")
the principal sum of Eighty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($80,000). Such amount
shall be payable immediately on the earlier of demand or February 15, 2000 to
the Holder at 161 Inverness Drive West, Englewood, Colorado 80112, or at such
other place as the Holder may designate from time to time in writing, in lawful
money of the United States of America.

         This Note shall not bear interest on the principal hereof. However, if
payment of this Note is not made when due, the principal shall accrue interest
at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until paid.

         This Note shall be binding upon the Maker, his personal
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.

         Maker agrees to pay to the Holder upon demand, all costs and expenses
(including attorneys' fees) incurred by the Holder in collection and enforcement
of this Note.

         The terms and provisions of this Note shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Colorado.



                                                       MAKER:


                                                       /s/ John Kane
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       John Kane
II

Calendar No. 98

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 538

[Report No. 104–75]

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under the Federal

Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in

Oregon, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. HATFIELD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under

the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of, a hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 538 RS

1 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF PERMIT AND EXTENSION

2 OF DEADLINE.

3 Notwithstanding the expiration of the permit and

4 notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of

5 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would other6 wise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

7 project numbered 7829, the Commission shall, at the re8 quest of the licensee for the project, reinstate the permit

9 effective May 23, 1993, and extend the time period during

10 which the licensee is required to commence the construc11 tion of the project to the date that is 4 years after the

12 date of enactment of this Act.

Calendar No. 98

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 538

[Report No. 104–75]

A BILL

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline

egon, and for other purposes.construction of, a hydroelectric project in Orunder the Federal Power Act applicable to the

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported without amendment
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 on Form 10-Q of Curis, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Daniel R. Passeri, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 ofoperations of the Company. 

 

Dated: July 20, 2004
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-159078, 333-107286, 333-35343, 333-33997, 333-71053, 333-52474, 333-90960, 333-126710, and 333-114140) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-160317, 333-152774,
333-136370, 333-122491, 333-114465, 333-52482, 333-72531, 333-59305, 333-07959 and 333-42161) of Endologix, Inc. of our report dated March 5, 2010 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|Orange County, California     
|March 5, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JORDAN BAYLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 28 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of April

, 2018, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Although counsel was negligent,

Petitioner is en titled to a counsel

- filed allocatur petition. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark R. Richards, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Appleton Papers Inc., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Appleton Papers 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant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(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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
registrant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; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 13, 2006



|           |  |                                                
|---------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Signature: |  | /s/ Mark R. Richards                           
|           |  | Mark R. Richards                               
|           |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer