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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001051860
<NAME> SCOVILL HOLDINGS
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,132
<INVENTORY>                                     24,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,757
<PP&E>                                          77,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,068
<BONDS>                                        137,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,267
<SALES>                                         92,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,476
<CGS>                                           68,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,954
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,744)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1 Letter Agreement


    
      

    


                                                                                    Exhibit
      10.1


    February
      22, 2006

    


    


    George
      Foreman Enterprises, Inc.

    100
      North
      Wilkes-Barre Blvd., 4th
      Floor

    Wilkes-Barre,
      PA 18702

    Atten:
      Efrem Gerszberg

    


    Re:
      Letter
      agreement dated November 23, 2005 between Circle Group Holdings, Inc. and George
      Foreman Enterprises, Inc. (“Letter Agreement”)

    


    Ladies
      and Gentlemen:

    


    This
      letter shall confirm our agreement to extend the 90 day time period for Circle
      Group Holdings, Inc. (“CXN”) and George Foreman Enterprises, Inc. (“GFME”) to
      enter into definitive agreements as set forth in paragraph 21 of the above
      referenced Letter Agreement. CXN and GFME agree that paragraph 21 of the Letter
      Agreement is hereby modified to provide that the parties shall, on or before
      Thursday, March 16, 2006, enter into a definitive agreement incorporating the
      terms of the Letter Agreement and such other provisions customary in
      transactions of this type.

     

    If
      the
      foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding, please so indicate by signing
      a counterpart of this letter and returning it to CXN by facsimile or e-mail,
      whereupon it will constitute a binding agreement between CXN and
      GFME.

     

    Very
      truly yours,

    


    CIRCLE
      GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      Gregory J. Halpern       

    Name:
      Gregory J. Halpern

    Title:
      C.E.O.

    


    


    Accepted
      and agreed to as of

    the
      date
      first above written:

     

    GEORGE
      FOREMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.

     

    By:
      /s/
      Efrem Gerszberg 

    Name:
      Efrem Gerszberg

    Title:
      President
EXHIBIT 10.19

                COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

         The Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. Board of Directors, based on
recommendations from the Compensation Committee, set the 2006 fiscal year base
salaries and restricted stock unit grants for the executive officers and
determined the amount of incentive bonus for each executive officer based on
2005 performance as set forth below.
In addition, the executive officers participate in our 401(k) plan and medical
and disability plans, as well as other compensatory plans, contracts and
arrangements which are filed as exhibits to our Form 10-K for the year ended
December 25, 2005.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      2006 ANNUAL        2005 INCENTIVE        2006 RESTRICTED
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TITLE                           BASE SALARY        BONUS                 STOCK UNITS*

<S>                                                      <C>              <C>                   <C>
Sally J. Smith                                           $450,000         $254,520              13,314
Chief Executive Officer and
     President


Mary J. Twinem                                           $280,000         $159,075               8,284
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
     Officer and Treasurer


Emil Lee Sanders                                         $215,000          $96,732               5,089
Senior Vice President, Development and
     Franchising


James M. Schmidt                                         $215,000         $102,126               5,089
Senior Vice President and
     General Counsel


Judith A. Shoulak                                        $230,000         $105,945               5,444
Senior Vice President, Operations


Kathleen M. Benning                                      $210,000          $92,126               4,970
Senior Vice President, Marketing and Brand
     Development


Craig W. Donoghue                                        $190,000          $80,610               4,497
Senior Vice President, Information Systems
</TABLE>


*These restricted stock units were granted as of December 26, 2005 and vest to
the extent of 33-1/3% on the last day of each fiscal year, and the risks of
forfeiture lapse as to such increment if the company achieves 95% of the
earnings target established by the Board of Directors.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                  [Stewart, Fowler & Stalvey, P.C. Letterhead]

                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-79893) of Quitman Bancorp, Inc., of our
report dated October 17, 2001, except for Note 19, as to which the date is
October 22, 2001, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition
of Quitman Bancorp, Inc. as of September 30, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the years then ended.


                                           /s/ Stewart, Fowler & Stalvey, P.C.



Valdosta, Georgia
December 21, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26753]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Proposed Collection, Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, the Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps 
(AFJROTC), Operations Section, announces the proposed renewal of a 
public information collection and seeks public comment on the 
provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 
18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed 
information collection should be sent to AFROTC/DOJ, 551 East Maxwell 
Blvd, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this 
proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and 
associated collection instruments, please write to the above address or 
call AFROTC/DOJO at (334) 953-5116.
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Application for 
Establishment of Air Force Junior ROTC Unit, AFOATS Form 59, OMB Number 
0701-0114.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to obtain information about schools which would like to host an Air 
Force Junior ROTC unit.
    Affected Public: Schools which desire to establish an Air Force 
Junior ROTC unit.
    Annual Burden Hours: 20.
    Number of Respondents: 40.
    Average Burden Per Respondent: 30 Minutes.
    Frequency: One time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Summary of Information Collection:
    Respondents are high school officials who provide information about 
their school which is interested in hosting an Air Force JROTC unit. 
The completed form is used to determine the eligibility of the school 
to host an Air Force JROTC unit. If the form is not included in the 
file, a school cannot be offered the opportunity to host an AFJROTC 
unit.

Janet A. Long,
Federal Register Air Force Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26753 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - 10 CFR Part 140 
          - [Docket No. PRM-140-1] 
          - RIN 3150-AB01 

# AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of a proposed rule and denial of petition for rulemaking; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice of withdrawal of a proposed rule and denial of a petition for rulemaking, relating to criteria for an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, appearing in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61283). This action is necessary to correct a reference to the NRC's rulemaking website appearing in the                         **ADDRESSES**                         paragraph.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        David L. Meyer, Chief Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-7162 (e-mail:                         *dlm@nrc.gov*).                     

Accordingly, in FR Doc. 00-26642, published at 65 FR 61283 on October 17, 2000, make the following correction: 

                        1. On page 61283, column one, the last sentence in the                         **ADDRESSES**                         paragraph, the rulemaking website is corrected to read as follows:                         *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.*

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October, 2000. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David L. Meyer,

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-27254 Filed 10-19-00; 2:39 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Ex parte LIVINGSTON.

No. 25104.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1950.

Jones & Taylor, Big Spring, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order of the Judge of the County Court of Howard County, refusing to discharge appellant upon writ of habeas corpus.

Upon the hearing of the writ, the state introduced in evidence three complaints showing that appellant was charged with three separate violations of the liquor laws of this state. No information upon these complaints was offered in evidence. No capias or warrant of arrest upon the complaints was shown.

*504The state rested its case upon the evidence showing the three complaints.

Appellant offered no testimony.

In Ex parte Wright, 138 Tex. Cr. R. 3S0, 136 S.W.2d 212, the rule is announced that when one is held in custody, under complaint, and seeks release by 'ha-beas corpus, it is incumbent u-pon the state to introduce against him sufficient evidence to show probable cause for holding him in custody.

The rule stated is applicable, and here controlling.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and relator is ordered discharged.

Opinion approved by the court.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30369 Conference Calendar

CHAD LIGHTFOOT ET AL., Plaintiffs, CHAD LIGHTFOOT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2038

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Louisiana prisoner Chad Lightfoot, #301162, appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his civil rights action. Lightfoot contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for class certification; erred by denying his motion for a default judgment against defendant Richard Stalder;No. 96-30369 - 2 - erred by denying his motion for appointment of an expert witness; and erred by granting summary judgment for the defendants. The denial of Lightfoot’s motion for class certification was not an abuse of discretion. Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc. , 964 F.2d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1992). Nor was the denial of his motion for a default judgment; Stalder filed an answer within two weeks after the entry of default and one day before Lightfoot’s motion for a default judgment was filed. See Thomas v. Kipperman , 846 f.2d 1009, 1011 (5th Cir. 1988). Nor was the denial of Lightfoot’s motion for appointment of an expert witness an abuse of discretion. See Fugitt v. Jones , 549 F.2d 1001, 1006 (5th Cir. 1977). Regarding the grant of summary judgment, Lightfoot does not argue his underlying claims on their merits; nor does he link the evidence he provided in the district court to any of those claims. He has failed to brief whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the defendants. Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995). Lightfoot’s appeal is frivolous. We previously warned Lightfoot that frivolous appeals could result in sanctions against him. Lightfoot v. Bienvenu , No. 94-CV-411, slip op. at 3 (5th Cir. Aug. 23, 1994). Accordingly, Lightfoot is barred from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court without the prior written approval of an active judge of this court. Further he is BARRED from filing any pro se, in formaNo. 96-30369 - 3 - pauperis, civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Lightfoot, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES UNDER THE CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.
SHORT TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


<Table>
<Caption>
                            2006 PERFORMANCE GOALS

        OFFICER                                           GOALS
---------------------------        ----------------------------------------------------
<S>                               <C>
David M. McClanahan                Operating Income
Gary L. Whitlock                   Operating Income
Scott E. Rozzell                   Operating Income
Thomas R. Standish                 Operating Income
                                   Operating Income from the Regulated Operations Group

                                   Achievement of certain financial and operational
                                   performance goals for each of the regulated units:

                                     -  Houston Electric
                                     -  Southern Gas Operations
                                     -  Minnesota Gas

Byron R. Kelley                    Operating Income
                                   Achievement of certain financial and
                                   operational performance goals for each of the Pipeline
                                   and Field Services units:
                                     -  Interstate Pipelines
                                     -  Pipeline Services
                                     -  Field Services

</Table>
#### DUPREE v. PRIMEAUX.

No. 12301.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

July 11, 1951.

Ernest Morgan, San Marcos, for appellant.

House, Mercer & House, San Antonio, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

J. B. Dupree, doing business as Dupree Oil Company, has appealed from an order overruling his plea of privilege to be sued in Hays County, the county of his residence. The trespass clause of exception 9 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Stats., is involved. The controlling question is whether or not there was any evidence showing a trespass.

The case was fried in the county court and plaintiff was the only witness who testified. A court reporter was not present but the parties have agreed upon a statement of facts in narrative form. The testimony relied upon to show a trespass consists of a statement made by a Mr. Dupree to the plaintiff, M. F. Primeaux.

Plaintiff pleaded that his automobile was hit by a truck owned by defendant; that the driver of the truck was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the damage to plaintiff’s automobile.

Primeaux testified that he drove his Buick sedan automobile in a Fourth of July (1950) Parade held at Seguin, Texas, and then left it parked upon one of the streets. When he next saw the car, it had been damaged. Later, he talked with Dupree and his version of the conversation is as follows: “The next day Mr. Dupree came and told me it was his truck that had run into my car. Mr. Dupree told me his truck was going through town for a load of gasoline and had to detour. He said a truck was hacking out of a driveway across the street and made his truck run into my car. * * * Mr. Du-pree said his truck had to detour and had to stop at the corner and when his truck started up there was a truck backing out from across the street and when his truck started up the back end of his truck struck the back end of my car. * * * Except for what Mr. Dupree told me I know nothing about whose truck it was that ran into my car or who was driving it.”

The phrase “suit based upon a trespass,” used in exception 9 of Article 1995, refers to a certain class of actions. Thomas v. Meyer, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 681; Heard & Heard v. Kuhnert, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 817. In order to bring a negligence case within the class specified as a “suit based upon a trespass,” it is necessary, among other things, to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant- or his agent was negli*646gent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury or damage sustained by plaintiff. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91. The testimony here shows no more than that a collision took place. It does not show that appellant or his truck driver was negligent.

The judgment is reversed, the plea of privilege sustained and the venue ordered changed to Hays County, Texas, the county of defendant’s residence.
#### A. W. FROST, Movant, v. Yancey BOWLING, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 2, 1951.

Courtney C. Wells, of Hazard, for mo'-vant.

Don A. Ward, of Hazard, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

The Board of Directors 

J. Crew Group, Inc.: 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement on Form S-8 for the J. Crew Group, Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated April 24, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of J. Crew Group,Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 28, 2006 and January 29, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in stockholders’ deficit for each of the years in the three-year period endedJanuary 28, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the January 28, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of J. Crew Group, Inc. 

Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity” in the thirdquarter of fiscal 2003. 

New York, New York 

April 24,2006