alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Montana Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Montana Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 10,980 | 10,980 | 10,680 | 10,880 | 11,480 | 12,180 | 12,180 | 12,180
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 13,180 | 13,780 | 13,780 | 13,780 | 13,780 | 13,880 | NA     | 14,380 | NA     | 14,680
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 14,900 | 15,500 | 16,000 | 16,500 | 16,350 | 16,550 | 16,750 | 17,150 | 17,550 | 17,550
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 17,550 | 17,550 | 17,550 | 17,550 | 17,350 | 17,350 | 17,350 | 17,050 | 17,050 | 17,050
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 17,150 | 17,200 | 17,200 | 17,150 | 17,350 |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Exhibit
      10.1











Ronald
      Rosenzweig         23
      July
      2007


[Address]








Subject: **Amendment
      - Agreement June 1, 1999 - Revision**








Dear
      Ron;





This
      is
      to confirm the revision made by the Board of Directors Compensation and Human
      Resources Committee meeting on 23 July 2007 to extend the Agreement dated June
      1, 1999 between you and ANADIGICS, Inc. (and extended from July 2, 2002 through
      July 2, 2003, from July 2, 2003 through July 2, 2004, from July 2, 2004 through
      July 2, 2005, from July 2, 2005 through July 2, 2006 and from July 2, 2006
      through July 2, 2007), regarding your employment by the Company. The existing
      agreement set to expire July 2, 2007, will be extended with the following terms
      and conditions:





1.
            Your
                employment is extended for the period from July 2, 2007 through July
                2,
                2008 at 25% time as ANADIGICS
                employee.


2.
            Your
                base salary compensation shall be at the annual rate of $110,000 paid
                biweekly.


3.
            All
                other terms of your agreement dated June 1, 1999 remain intact as
                part of
                this extension.








If
      you
      are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign and return to John Warren,
      a
      copy of this letter.





Very
      truly yours,





/s/
      Bami
      Bastani









Dr.
      Bami
      Bastani


President
      & Chief Executive Officer


ANADIGICS,
      Inc.





Accepted
      and agreed to as stated.









/s/Ronald
      Rosenzweig


Ronald
      Rosenzweig
NETSCAPE SOFTWARE

                               FINANCIAL AGREEMENT

                                November 4, 1999

The following  software  products will be offered to  WordCruncher  for purchase
through the following financial  agreement between three parties:  WordCruncher,
IBS and Access  Graphics.  This  agreement will be in effect upon software order
placement and will conclude upon final payment made by WordCruncher.

1.       Netscape Software products be purchased for $268,068.72. Please see the
         IBS Quotation NAS201 dated 11/4/99.

2.       WordCruncher will be extended a 40-day net purchase  arrangement on the
         transaction.  WordCruncher  may pay  prior to net 30 and  receive a 1-%
         discount on the invoice amount.  WordCruncher  has the option of paying
         any amount of money upon order. The total amount payable on the invoice
         after the 40-day period will carry a 1-% carry fee per 30-day period.

3.       WordCruncher  may elect to pay the 1-% carry charge for a  twelve-month
         period.  On or before the 12th month,  the total  amount of the invoice
         must be paid in full.

4.       This transaction is final upon order.


/s/  D_____ S. Hoffler, Principal
------------------------------------
11/4/99
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00328

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DENNIS LYNCH,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 241S T

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

P ER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to evading arrest, and the trial court assessed his punishment at

confinement for two years.

We have received the clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s certification

showing that Appellant waived his right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). The clerk’s

record also includes a copy of the written waiver of Appellant’s right to appeal, which is signed

by Appellant and his counsel. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel for this appeal has informed

this court that, after sentencing, Appellant waived his right to appeal . T herefore , he concludes

the appeal must be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Opinion delivered June 24, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 24 , 2015

NO. 12

- 14

- 00328

- CR

DENNIS LYNCH,
Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 1310

- 14)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this c ourt that this court is without jurisdiction of the

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
DANNYB. 

DEPARTM TOF 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OLUMBIA 

OCT 2 3 2001 

Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CVM :vER INGTO ,Cl.ERK . . OISTR CT COURT 

A NO. 1 :01 V01342 

R , t al. Judge mmet . Sullivan 

) 

___ ____ ..2D~fi~n~d~ru~1~ts~. ____ ) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

Pur uant t th direction of the ourt, defendants submit the attached scheduling order 

for the Court' onsideration. Plaintiff does not consent to the schedule proposed by defendants 

and will b ubmitting his own proposal. Defendants believe the attached schedule - deferring 

the filing of defendants' motion for summary judgment until after a ruling on Plaintiffs Motion to 

Compel Defendants to Permit His Attorney's Access to Classified Manuscript and Pleadings 

(filed Oct. 19, 2001)- is necessary in order to allow defendants a reasonable time to reassess 

their litigation strategy and to consider seeking leave of this Court to file an interlocutory appeal 

if the Court orders the government to disclose classified information to plaintiffs counsel. 

Defendants also note that negotiations are still ongoing and that it is thus premature to propose a 

briefing schedule with specific dates at this time, even putting aside the issue of whether the 

Court can and should order the government to disclose classified information to plaintiffs 

counsel. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT D. Mc ALLUM, JR. 

Assistant Attom y General 

ivil Di ision 

ROS O . HOW ARD, JR. 

United States Attorney 

Ex. D

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-4 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 422
Dat d: 2001 

ir ct r 

f J tice 

h 

m 1086 

0 

Attom y f; r Defi nd nt 

-2-

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-4 Filed 06/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 423
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2 CFO Certification

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, on the date hereof, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Technology Visions Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 USC 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.302 and
promulgated as 18 USC 1350 pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1.       The Report referenced above has been read and reviewed by the
         undersigned.

2.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

3.       The Report referenced above does not contain any untrue statement of a
         material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to
         makes the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
         such statements were made, not misleading.

4.       I acknowledge that the management of the Company is solely responsible
         for the fair presentation in the financial statements of the financial
         position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company in
         conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
         States of America.

Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other such financial
information included in the report, fairly present the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the period ended September
30, 2002.

In my opinion, the accompanying interim financial statements, prepared in
accordance with the instructions for Form 10-QSB, are unaudited and contain all
material adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments necessary
to present fairly the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the Company for the respective interim periods presented. The current period
results of operations are not necessarily indicative of results which ultimately
will be reported for the full fiscal year.

Additionally, I acknowledge that the Company's Board of Directors and Management
are solely responsible for adopting sound accounting practices, establishing and
maintaining a system of internal control and preventing and detecting fraud. The
Company's system of internal accounting control is designed to assure, among
other items, that 1) recorded transactions are valid; 2) valid transactions are
recorded; and 3) transactions are recorded in the proper period in a timely
manner to produce financial statements which present fairly the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the
respective periods being presented.

/s/ James A. Giansiracusa
------------------------------
James A. Giansiracusa
Chief Financial Officer
Dated: November 12, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR T}IE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

U.S. DISTRICT COLRT

NORTHERI{ DISI']{ICT OF TEXAS

FILED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GILIBERTO MARTINEZ-ALMAZAN (I)

CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-001 83-N

l8 U.S.C. $ 3la3(a)(2) unless (lXa) the Court finds there is a

or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has

imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing

$

$

$

$

$

REPORT AIYD RECOMMEI\IDATION

CONCER}IING PLEA OF GUILTY

GILIBERTO MARTII\EZ-ALMAZAI\ (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d

261 (5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. I I , and has entered a plea of guilty to Countr I

of the IndictmentrAfter cautioning and examining GILIBERTO MARTINEZ-ALMAZAN (l) under oath concerning

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule I l, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the

offense , charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense.

I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that GILIBERTO MARTINEZ-ALMAZAN (l) be

adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. $ 1326(a!llegal Reentry After Removal from the United Statesgnd have sentence imposed

accorjingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the district judge,

{ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. g 3la3(a)(l) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

The Government does not oppose release.

The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c).

The Government opposes release.

The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

D

!

tr

D

!

D

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be

under $ 3145(c) why the defendant should not be

evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or a dan released.

Date: July 14,2022

TE ruDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of

its service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United

States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. $636(bXlXB).

Case 3:22-cr-00183-N Document 22 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
Order entered December 1, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00704-CR

JEROME JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F01-53637-JH

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 10, 2021 “Motion for Production 

of Exculpatory Material Evidences in Possession of the State, Material to the 

Appeal.” In the motion, appellant seeks reports, records, documents, the complete 

prosecutor file, and other items not located in the appellate record. We DENY the 

motion. See Delgado v. State, No. 05-19-00821-CR, 2021 WL 4901565, at *9 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 21, 2021, no pet h.) (“The standard we must apply deals 

only with ‘the record evidence adduced at the trial.’ This includes evidence both 
properly and improperly admitted, but it cannot include evidence not admitted.”) 

(internal citations omitted).

In his second motion, appellant contends he is entitled to appointed counsel 

in this appeal. An indigent convicted person intending to file a motion for postconviction DNA testing has a limited right to appointed counsel. See TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c). While that “entitlement used to be absolute,” “it is 

now conditioned on the trial judge’s finding ‘that reasonable grounds exist for the 

filing of a motion.’” Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 889–90 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011). Here, the trial court did not find that reasonable grounds existed for 

filing the motion; thus, under the plain language of the code of criminal procedure, 

appellant is not entitled to counsel “during a proceeding under this chapter,” which 

includes this appeal. We DENY appellant’s motion for counsel.

Also before the Court is appellant’s letter requesting clarification on when 

his brief is due. In the letter, appellant notes that he has not yet received a paper 

copy of the clerk’s record. We DIRECT the Clerk to send a paper copy of the 

clerk’s record filed in this appeal to appellant at the address on file with the Court.

We ORDER appellant’s brief due by January 14, 2022.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             353
<SECURITIES>                                     1,284
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,808<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,407
<PP&E>                                             453<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,667
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              163
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,946
<SALES>                                         26,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,514
<CGS>                                           23,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
<FN>
<F1>Amounts reported for receivables & PP&E are net amounts
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   I, Melvyn Brunt, Chief Financial Officer of Sielox, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: March 31, 2008    /s/ Melvyn BruntMelvyn BruntChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5


<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              96,786
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   117,439
<PP&E>                                             192,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                      69,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     247,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,533,979
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            26,495
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,312,794)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       247,680
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,860,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,344,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12,344,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,344,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### SPANN v. STATE.

No. 22090.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1942.

' T>. E. Hume, of Eagle Pass, and G. C. Jackson, of Crystal City, for appellant.'

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction, is for drunkenness in a public place. The punishment assessed is a fine of $50.

. The prosecution originated in the justice-court. After an appeal to the county court, and upon a trial de novo, judgment was entered-assessing a fine of $50 against appellant. Article 53, C.C.P., reads as follows:.

*495“The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the State 'in all criminal- cases. This article shall not be so construed as to embrace any case which has been appealed from any inferior court to the county court or county court at law, in which the fine imposed by the county court or county court at law shall not exceed one hundred dollars.”

Therefore, under the terms of the statute above quoted, this court is without jurisdiction óf the appeal. See Corley v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 478, 149 S.W.2d 99, and cases there cited.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges óf the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.