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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                  OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                                5,548
<SECURITIES>                                                          2,545
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            27
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      8,236
<PP&E>                                                                2,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       10,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 5,399
<BONDS>                                                               1,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                                  7
<OTHER-SE>                                                            4,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         10,991
<SALES>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        588
<CGS>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        17,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (16,416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (16,416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (16,416)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         (2.24)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (2.24)
<FN>
<F1>EPS BASIC
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,635
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,110
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,172
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,102
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,172
<LOANS>                                         51,815
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,241
<DEPOSITS>                                      56,793
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                293
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  68,241
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,356
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  467
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   183
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,006
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 125
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,481
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    323
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         323
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.02
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,826
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   550
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    659
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,613
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      316
<RECOVERIES>                                        79
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,496
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,237
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            259
        


</TABLE>
exv10w1w48



 






Exhibit 10.1.48




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.

PARTNER AGENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT



This amendment modifies the Specialty Underwriters’ Alliance, Inc. Partner Agent Program Agreement
by and between Company and Partner Agent, dated October 11, 2005 (the “Agreement”). Any
capitalized terms defined in the Agreement and used herein shall have the same meaning in this
Addendum as in the Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect after the date hereof and each of the parties by its execution hereof ratifies and confirms
the provisions of said Agreement.



Now, therefore, in accordance with Section IX, D of the Agreement and in consideration of the
mutual agreements and covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as
follows:





	 	1.	 	Section VI, PREMIUMS AND ACCOUNTING, paragraph C. is deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“All premiums collected by Partner Agent are the property of Company and shall be held in
trust on behalf of Company in a fiduciary capacity. Partner Agent may commingle Company premium
funds held by Partner Agent with premium funds held by Partner Agent on behalf of another
company or person for a period not to exceed seven (7) calendar days, at which time any and all
premium funds held by the Partner Agent on behalf of the Company shall then be deposited and
maintained in an account separate and segregated from Partner Agent’s own funds or funds held by
Partner Agent on behalf of any other company or person (the “Premium Trust Fund”). The Premium
Trust Fund shall be placed in an interest bearing account in a bank and account approved by
Company in advance. Unless Partner Agent has breached this Agreement, Partner Agent shall be
authorized to retain the interest on the Premium Trust Fund. Company may request at any time,
and Partner Agent shall provide, a reconciliation of the funds deposited in, and balance due to
Company from the Premium Trust Fund.”




This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



This Amendment shall be deemed to be made in and in all respects shall be interpreted, construed
and governed by and in accordance with the law of the State of Delaware without regard to
principles of conflicts of laws that would require application of the law of a jurisdiction other
than the State of Delaware.



Signed this 13th day of December, 2005.




SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.




	 	 	 
	BY: /s/ WILLIAM LODER
 


	 	  
	NAME: William Loder
	 	 
	TITLE: Senior Vice President, Chief Underwriting Officer






PARTNER AGENT




	 	 	 
	BY: /s/ ROBERT J. AROWOOD
 


	 	  
	NAME: Robert J. Arowood
	 	 
	TITLE: President
	 	 






1
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 Winfield Capital Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul A. Perlin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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 result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Paul A. Perlin
-----------------------------
Paul A. Perlin
Chairman of the Board &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: November 13, 2003


                                      -25-
March 15, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

On behalf of CleanTECH San Diego, I am pleased to submit my support for the application of 

Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego International Airport (SAN) and Washington 

Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego is the largest region without direct service to DCA. 

Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San Diego and the nation’s 

capital, the region generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to 

the convenient and close-in airport serving our nation’s capital. 

CleanTECH San Diego is a nonprofit association focused on accelerating the greater San 

Diego region’s transition to a clean energy economy. We have a broad and diverse 

membership that includes private sector companies, as well as local governments, 

nongovernmental agencies and universities and research institutions. Quick and convenient 

access to policy makers and regulatory agencies in Washington, DC is important to the regions 

cleantech industry.

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego to Dulles 

average airfares are the highest of west coast cities, should qualify for the limited slots available

for this flight. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to 

Washington’s city center that average about $60 each way. This means travelers between 

Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average close to $400 one-way. 

There are also countless other San Diego-based and Washington-based businesses that are 

engaged in cleantech, health science, telecommunications, and national defense that need 

quick and convenient access to DCA. CleanTECH San Diego has an immediate need for 

additional nonstop air service to our nation’s capital. Alaska Airlines’ service would add a 

needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. 

CleanTECH San Diego joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San 

Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, the 

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and others in support of Alaska Airlines’ 

application for San Diego International Airport– Washington Reagan National direct service.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above 

referenced docket, and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ SAN – DCA 

proposal soon.

Sincerely,

James Waring
Exhibit 11.1
STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
AG-CHEM EQUIPMENT CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



The per share computations are based on the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the periods.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  Three Months Ended March 31,   Six Months Ended March 31,
                                  ----------------------------   --------------------------
                                     1998           1997           1998           1997
                                   -------        -------        -------        -------
<S>                                  <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>  
Shares outstanding at                9,670          9,696          9,670          9,696
beginning of period

Issuance of common stock                --             --             --             --

Repurchase and retirement of
common stock
                                        (3)            (5)            (3)            (5)
                                   -------        -------        -------        -------

Shares outstanding at end of
period                               9,667          9,691          9,667          9,691
                                   =======        =======        =======        =======

Weighted average shares
outstanding                          9,667          9,691          9,668          9,694
                                   =======        =======        =======        =======

Net earnings                       $ 7,930        $ 8,287        $ 6,835        $ 9,281
                                   =======        =======        =======        =======

Earnings per common share
                                   $  0.82        $  0.86        $  0.71        $  0.96
                                   =======        =======        =======        =======

</TABLE>

The Company has no common stock equivalents outstanding.
#### MARR v. STATE.

No. 22960.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1944.

Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, punishment assessed being a fine of fifty dollars and thirty days in jail.

The record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

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

No. 26930.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1954.

J. P. Darrouzet, Austin, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator is confined in the penitentiary and seeks release upon the contention that he has served the sentences imposed.

On August 4, 1950, relator was sentenced to a term of two years in the penitentiary in Cause No. 17008 in the District Court of Navarro County. This sentence was credited with the time from April 17, 1950, to August 4, 1950, and contained the provision that the sentence “shall 'begin when the judgments heretofore imposed against said defendant in Freestone and Grayson Counties shall cease to operate.”

Such provision for cumulation has been held insufficient in law to prevent the sentence from being served concurrently. See Ex parte Johnson, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 200; Ex parte George Cordes, Tex.Cr.App., 264 S.W.2d 438.

Two additional two year sentences were pronounced against relator in the District Court of Navarro County on August 4, 1950, the sentence in Cause No. 17009 providing that it should begin at the expiration of the sentence in the above-mentioned Cause No. 17008, and the sentence in Cause No. 17010 was ordered to begin at the expiration of the sentence in Cause No. 17009.

The prior sentences as well as the three cumulated sentences mentioned appear to have been served, it being shown that relator has credit for more than six years from and after August 4, 1950.

He is therefore entitled to be discharged from the penitentiary.

The writ is granted and relator will be discharged from further confinement under such sentences.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 22691.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1943.

*334. Cunningham, Lipscomb & Cole, of Bon-ham, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is selling whisky in a dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

Appellant brings forward two complaints, the first of which relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. The second relates to the admission of certain evidence. We will discuss these questions in the order in which they are presented.

The State’s testimony, briefly stated, shows that on the 24th day of April, 1943, an agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board purchased from the appellant in the town of Leonard,/in Fannin County, Texas, one pint of whisky. The record also discloses that Fannin County is a dry area. The whisky purchased from the appellant was introduced on the trial of the case. Appellant’s plea was that of an alibi, which he supported by his own testimony and by that of several other parties, each of them testifying that late in the afternoon of April 23rd they went with the appellant to Bridgeport, in Wise County, on a fishing trip; that they remained in that county until the 28th day of April, when they returned to Leonard. It will be noted that an issue of fact was raised which the jury, who are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, decided adversely to the appellant’s contention; and this finding of fact by the jury is binding upon this court. See Boaz v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 154 S.W.2d 849; Ward v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 444, 158 S.W.2d 516; Lazarme v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 280, 158 S.W.2d 537, and cases cited.

There is but one bill of exception in the record in which appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting the County Clerk to read from a pamphlet issued by the Game, Fish and Oyster Commission that it was unlawful “to take bass or crappie” during the months of March and April; that the fishing season did not begin until the first day of May, and a license to fish could not be lawfully issued before said date; to which appellant objected on the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial. This bill is insufficient to manifest the supposed error. Appellant has not set out therein enough of the surrounding facts and circumstances to enable this court to determine the merits of the bill so as to show that the evidence was erroneously admitted and was prejudicial. This is necessary in order for this court to determine that there is merit in his complaint. See 4 Tex.Jur. p. 316, § 217; also Armstrong v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 163, 54 S.W.2d 525; Banks v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 282 S.W. 225.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-8-2010 

# V i k ing Y a cht C o Inc v

. C omp o sit es O ne LL C P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-3417

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" V i kin g Y a cht C o Inc v

. C omposit e s One LL C " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 986. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/986H onor abl e St ew ar tD al zel l , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he East ern D i s t r i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E ALS F O R T H ET H IRD C IR C U IT

_____________ N os . 09- 3417, 09- 3558

_____________ V IK IN G Y A C H T C O ., IN C ., E T A L ., A p p e lla n ts /C ro s s -A p p e lle e s ,

v. C O M P O S IT E O N E L L C , E T A L ., A pp el l ees/ C ross -A pp el l ants .

_____________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey N o. 1: 05- cv- 00538 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas

_____________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay14, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and

D A L Z E L L , D i s t r i ctJ udge

* OR DE R A M E ND I NG OP I NI ON I T I S OR DERED th a t th e n o t p re c e d e n tial o p in io n in th e a b o v e c a se f iled o n Ju ly 1, 20 10 , be am end ed as fo l l ow s: O n p a g e 5 , the f

o llo w in g se n ten c e b e d e lete d : “W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l under18 U . S. C . § 1291” and r epl ace d w i t h:

“W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this ap p ea l un d er 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 .”F or

theCourt , Marc ia M. Waldron, Clerk Dated: July

8, 2010
#### GOODE v. STATE.

No. 24941.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1950.

No attorneys, for appellant.

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

*584GRAVES, Associate Justice.

Appellant plead guilty to driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated and was by the court fined $250 and sentenced to serve 10 days in the county jail; and evidently being dissatisfied with such verdict, he appeals.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the statement of facts show the drunken condition of the appellant at the time he had a collision with another car on a public highway.

The judgment is affirmed.