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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,500,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,072,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                   290,049
<INVENTORY>                                    806,310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,489,350
<PP&E>                                         303,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 492,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,793,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,111,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,635
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,615,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,793,203
<SALES>                                      2,976,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,976,262
<CGS>                                        1,268,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,268,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,169,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,516,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,516,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,516,415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.28)
        


</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1964

___________

Gabrielle F. Morris, M.D., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

*

McFarland Clinic, P.C.; and * [UNPUBLISHED]

Terry McGeeney, M.D., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 8, 2007

Filed: January 26, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Gabrielle F. Morris appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment and

imposition of sanctions following a bench trial in this diversity action. Dr. Morris

brought suit against the McFarland Clinic and Dr. Terry McGeeney for (1) fraudulent

misrepresentation concerning Dr. Morris’ ability to obtain an Iowa medical license
-2-

and (2) breach of contract. In addition to entering judgment against Dr. Morris, the

court granted McFarland Clinic and Dr. McGeeney’s motion for sanctions in the

amount of reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in their attempt to obtain

production of certain documents provided to Dr. Morris’ attorney by the California

Medical Board. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, including the magistrate judge’s thorough

and well-reasoned opinion, we find no basis for reversal. See Tadlock v. Powell, 291

F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir. 2002) (factual findings reviewed for clear error and legal

conclusions reviewed de novo); Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694

(8th Cir. 2001) (sanctions reviewed under abuse of discretion standard). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibti 21.1

                               AXEDA SYSTEMS INC.
                                  SUBSIDARIES

UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS, WHOLLY OWNED:

1.  RAVISENT IP, Inc.: a Nevada Corporation, EIN No.: 88-0433260

    a.   Axeda IP, Inc.: a Nevada Corporation wholly owned by RAVISENT IP, Inc.

2.  RAVISENT Operating Company Inc.: a Delaware Corporation, EIN
    No.: 23-3022334.

3.  Liuco, Inc.: a Delaware Corporation, EIN No.: 51-0391002

4.  RAVISENT Technologies Internet Appliance Group, Inc.: a Delaware
    Corporation, EIN No.: 52-2206140

GERMAN ENTITIES.

5.  Erste Cinco Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH: wholly owned subsidiary of Axeda
    Systems Inc.

6.  Viona Vervatungs GmbH: wholly owned subsidiary of Erste Cinco
    Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH.

7.  Viona Development Hard and Software Engineering GmbH & Co. KG: a
    limited partnership owned by Erste Cinco Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH (5
    above) and Viona Vervatungs GmbH (6 above).

CANADIAN ENTITIES

8.  RAVISENT Nova Scotia: an unlimited liability Nova Scotia company wholly
    owned by Axeda Systems Inc.

9.  RAVISENT British Columbia: a corporation organized under the laws of
    British Columbia wholly owned by RAVISENT Nova Scotia

ISRAELI ENTITY:

10. Axeda Systems Ltd.: an Israeli corporation wholly owned by Axeda Systems
    Inc.

    a.   Axeda Systems Operating Company, Inc.: US company incorporated in
         Massachusetts- wholly owned by Axeda Systems Ltd.
<PAGE>

    b.   eMation R&D, Inc.: US corporation incorporated in Massachusetts-
         wholly owned by Axeda Systems Ltd.

    c.   Axeda Systems S.A.R.L.: a French corporation wholly owned by Axeda
         Systems Ltd.

    d.   Axeda Systems B.V.: a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
         Netherlands wholly owned by Axeda Systems, Ltd.

    e.   eMation Limited (d/b/a Axeda Systems Limited): a UK corporation wholly
         owned by Axeda Systems, Ltd.

    f.   Axeda Systems KK: a Japanese corporation wholly owned by Axeda
         Systems, Ltd.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                   FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                    DECEMBER 28, 2001                  DECEMBER 29, 2000                  DECEMBER 31, 1999
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 29,361           $ 34,428        $ 29,361           $ 34,478         $ 29,361            $ 34,428
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    28,480             29,361          28,480             29,361           28,480              29,361
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 28,480           $ 29,361          28,480           $ 29,361         $ 28,480            $ 29,361
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.17


 


SUMMARY OF NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


As of January 1, 2006


 


	
  Function

  	
   

  	
  Amount Paid

  	
   

  	
  Form of Payment

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual
  Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $37,000
  annually

  	
   

  	
  Payable in
  quarterly increments in shares of company common stock at its fair market value

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Board
  Meeting Fee

  	
   

  	
  $5,000 per
  meeting

  	
   

  	
  Cash per
  meeting attended

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Standing
  Committee Meeting Fee

  	
   

  	
  $1,750 per
  meeting

  	
   

  	
  Cash per
  meeting attended

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee
  Chair Meeting Fee

  	
   

  	
  $2,500 total
  per meeting

  	
   

  	
  Cash per
  meeting attended

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Lead-Non
  Management Director Fee

  	
   

  	
  $10,000
  annually

  	
   

  	
  Payable in
  cash in quarterly increments

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Meeting
  Travel Expenses

  	
   

  	
  Reasonable
  and actual

  	
   

  	
  Cash
  reimbursement
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10QSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000095898
<NAME> SWISS CHALET , INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,754,995
<SECURITIES>                                 1,228,960
<RECEIVABLES>                                  396,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,467,888
<PP&E>                                       5,939,805
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,017,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,468,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          668,709
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       700,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,033,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,468,436
<SALES>                                      2,187,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,774,617
<CGS>                                           63,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,722,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                988,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            988,917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   988,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
        

</TABLE>
#### Ex parte McDONALD.

No. 26083.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the order of the Judge of the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County refusing the relator’s application for bail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ex parte WILLIS.

No. 26289.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1953.

*511No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court,, a jury having been waived, relator was found guilty of the offense of “Forgery and Passing Forgery”, and the judgment recites that his punishment was assessed at ten years in the penitentiary.

Sentence was pronounced upon this judgment in the District Court of Nueces County on March 13, 1951, being Cause No. 8041 on the docket of said court, and relator is now confined in the penitentiary under such sentence. He sought discharge by writ of habeas corpus which was granted by. District Judge W. S. Barron and made returnable before this court as provided in Art. 119, V.A.C.C.P.

Relator is now credited with more than two years on such sentence, due to good time earned and time served.

The indictment against relator was in two counts, one charging forgery and the other passing a forged instrument.

Art. 1005, V.A.P.C., provides that under such an indictment only one penalty shall be assessed, which shall not exceed the greatest punishment fixed by law to the highest grade of offense of which the defendant is convicted. The maximum punishment which might have been assessed. against relator was therefore seven years for the offense of forgery.

Under the holdings of this court in Ex parte Castleberry, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 584, relator having served the minimum punishment for the offense charged, is entitled to his discharge, the judgment as to the punishment in excess thereof being invalid.

Relator’s prayer for release is granted and he is ordered discharged from confinement under the sentence mentioned.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, S. Gene Thompson, ChiefFinancial Officer of Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc. (the “Registrant”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

1.             The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Registrant for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.              The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GaselTransportation Lines, Inc. and will be retained by Gasel Transportation Lines,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Dated: | August 18,  2003 |                                                              | By: | /s/  S.  Gene Thompson |
|--------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------------------------|
|   |             | S. Gene  Thompson, Vice  President & Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16


December 21, 2001



            Re: Amendment to DOCSIS IPR Agreement to cover DOCSIS 2.0


Dear Dr. Rakib:

This letter amends the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications License
Agreement between CableLabs and Terayon Communication Systems, Inc., dated
December 21, 2001, (the "Agreement") to confirm that the royalty-free license
granted by the Agreement includes the new DOCSIS 2.0 specification.

1.   Section 7.1 of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:

     "7.1 Periodic Amendments. CableLabs may revise the Specifications from time
     to time until June 1, 2005..."

2.   CableLabs deems DOCSIS 2.0 a "Major Change" as defined in Section 7.2 of
     the Agreement. By your signature below, you waive your right set forth in
     Section 7.2 of the Agreement to object to the inclusion of your
     contributions to DOCSIS 2.0 (currently identified as SP-RFIv2.0-W03-011112)
     into the Specifications (as defined in the Agreement). This waiver shall
     not apply to any of your intellectual property that was contributed into
     DOCSIS 2.0 without your knowledge and consent, nor shall it apply to
     possible future versions of DOCSIS, such as 2.1 or 3.0. You agree to advise
     CableLabs without delay if you believe any of your intellectual property
     has been inadvertently added to DOCSIS 2.0.

Except as modified by this letter, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

We trust that this amendment and waiver will be acceptable to you. If so, please
sign and date both originals, and return one to Mrs. Dorothy Raymond, our
General Counsel, at our address shown below.

Very truly yours,                       AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

/s/ Christopher J. Lammers              Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
Christopher J. Lammers

Executive Vice President and            By: /s/ Zaki Rakib
Chief Operating Officer                 Name:  Zaki Rakib
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                        Dated: December 21, 2002

DGR/ebg
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6668

ANTONIO SHEPPARD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GALE JONES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:17-cv-00475-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Sheppard Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Sheppard Williams appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment because Williams failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. 

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Williams’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for 

the district court’s disposition, Williams has forfeited appellate review of the court’s 

order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is 

an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues 

preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7690

TONY HESTER VINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LAFAYETTE HALL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00701-JAB) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Hester Vinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tony Hester Vinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Vinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### GRIFFIN v. STATE.

No. 26788.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

■ William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, AssL Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*951WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault on a peace officer; the punishment assessed by the jury, a fine of $250. ■

All proceedings appear to be regular. The record is brought forward without a statement of facts or -till of exception. Nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.