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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          97,524
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  613,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,804
<INVENTORY>                                    511,706
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,356,074
<PP&E>                                       4,379,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,355,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,963,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          668,872
<BONDS>                                        962,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,797,442
<OTHER-SE>                                     428,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,963,165
<SALES>                                      1,626,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,626,895
<CGS>                                          973,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  973,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               449,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                180,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            120,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,251
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

February 01, 2008

Mr. William V. Dorsaneo III

SMU School of Law

3315 Daniels Storey Hall

Dallas, TX 75275

Mr. John Blaise Gsanger

The Edwards Law Firm

P.O. Box 480

Corpus Christi, TX 78403-0480

Mr. William R. Edwards

The Edwards Law Firm

P.O. Box 480

Corpus Christi, TX 78403-0480

Mr. J. Mitchell Clark

Law Offices of J. Mitchell Clark

P.O. Box 2701

802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1650

Corpus Christi, TX 78403-2701

Mr. Vernon N. Reaser Jr.

Law Office of Vernon N.  Reaser, Jr.

202 Pecan Drive

Victoria, TX 77905-0686

RE:Case Number:  03-1189

Court of Appeals Number:  13-02-00415-CV

Trial Court Number:  00-61082-3

Style:DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

v.

BILL INMAN, DAVID CASTRO, AND JOHN WILKINS, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 03-1189Page 2**
Case 1:22-cr-00043-H-BU Document 25 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 41
Case 1:22-cr-00043-H-BU Document 25 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 42
#### Charles Warren POOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 25963.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 28, 1952.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is unlawful delivery of barbiturates; the punishment, 6 months in jail.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form, executed by appellant, requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RICHARD ALLEN SWARTZ, §

#1165410 §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01809-X (BT)

§

DALLAS DEPARTMENT OF §

CRIMINAL, et al, § 

Defendants. 

ORDER

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case on August 23, 2022. No objections were made. After 

reviewing this case for clear error, the Court finds none and ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

SIGNED this 8th day of September 2022.

_________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01809-X-BT Document 4 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 26
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3474 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3474

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt 
     employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans 
   Administration from being taken into account for purposes of the 
 employer mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2013

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt 
     employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans 
   Administration from being taken into account for purposes of the 
 employer mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hire More Heroes Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES WITH HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER TRICARE OR THE VETERANS 
              ADMINISTRATION MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM EMPLOYER MANDATE 
              UNDER PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 4980H(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) Exemption for health coverage under tricare 
                or the veterans administration.--Solely for purposes of 
                determining whether an employer is an applicable large 
                employer under this paragraph for any month, an 
                employer may elect not to take into account for a month 
                as an employee any individual who, for such month, has 
                medical coverage under--
                            ``(i) chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
                        Code, including coverage under the TRICARE 
                        program, or
                            ``(ii) under a health care program under 
                        chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States 
                        Code, as determined by the Secretary of 
                        Veterans Affairs, in coordination with the 
                        Secretary of Health and Human Services and the 
                        Secretary.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00044-CR

Lloyd Anthony Nelson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR21890, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
2

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: October 28, 2009

Do Not Publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .-- .. ;: ... -. -· : ~. -~: .-~:.: 1 1 1· • ·· . .• _. , • 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ;_ · 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-063-H-BQ-1 

JOSHUA TRACE MOODY 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Indictment, charging defendant with a violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 751 (a), that is, Escape from a Halfway House. After examining Defendant 

under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

Case 5:22-cr-00063-H-BQ Document 23 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 38
3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen ( 14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed September 19, 2022. 

Case 5:22-cr-00063-H-BQ Document 23 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 39
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilbert K. Sheppard, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered July 31, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Confrontation Clause (US Const 6th Amend) bars the admission at a joint trial of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession which serves to incriminate the defendant *(see, Bruton v United States,*391 US 123). At the trial, the codefendant Mark Davis’s statement was admitted into evidence. The *586defendant’s statement, which was identical to the codefendant Davis’s statement, was also introduced into evidence. We find that the court erred by permitting the codefendant’s statement to be introduced into evidence. However, since the defendant’s own statement may be considered on appeal in assessing whether the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless *(see, Cruz v New York,*481 US 186; *People v Hamlin,*71 NY2d 750; *People v Garcia,*151 AD2d 500), and since the defendant’s statement was identical to that of the codefendant, we find the admission of Davis’s statement to be harmless *(see, People v Hamlin, supra).*There is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the codefendant’s statement not been admitted in evidence *(see, People v Hamlin, supra).*

We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
Case 3:22-cr-00107-S Document 10 Filed 05/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 29
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-3303

VERLYN E. RICHARDS, Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

Verlyn E. Richards , of Southfield, Michigan, pro se. Joyce G. Friedman , Attorney, Office of the Gene ral Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washin gton, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General Counsel, and Sara B. Rearden , Acting Associate General Counsel. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-3303

VERLYN E. RICHARDS, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DE CIDED: May 11, 2007

__________________________

Before MAYER, BRYSON and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Verlyn E. Richards appeals t he decision of the Merit S ystems Protection Board, dismissing her appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Richards v. Dep’t of the Army , CH-0752-05-0883-I-1 (MSPB May 12, 2006). Be cause Richards has failed to set out any allegation that, if true, would establish involuntar y resignation, we affirm

. Richards contends that her decision to retire was the product of improper agency action, coercion, duress, intolerable work ing conditions, and agency misinformation. Each contention, however, is without merit. Because her position required a security clearance, it was not improper for the agency to indefinit ely suspend her based on therevocation of her clearance, pen ding its investigation of the issue. Any role that her suspension had in giving rise to unpleasant financial conditions cannot, therefore, support a finding that her resignation was in voluntary. Next, substantial evidence supports the board’s determinati on that her allegations of workplace harassment and

mistreatment do not establish coercion, intolerable working conditions, or duress. This is especially so given that , due to her suspension, Richar ds had not worked at the agency in several months, thereby diminish ing any causal connection between her working environment and her decision to retire. Finally, Richards has failed to make any specific allegation that could support a finding that agency misinformation gave rise to her resignation.

2006-3303 2
Exhibit 3
AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS
-------------------

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of SFS Bancorp, Inc. met on January 24, 1996 and
discussed  its  intentions  that the  Holding  Company  continue to be a holding
company of a community oriented financial institution designed to meet the needs
of the communities it serves; and

WHEREAS,  the communities of the Holding Company and its subsidiaries  currently
serves is primarily the counties of Schenectady, Saratoga, Albany and Rensselaer
in the state of New York ("the primary market area"); and

WHEREAS,  substantially  all of the  Company's  loans are  secured  by  property
located within its primary market area and substantially all of its deposits are
obtained from individuals or entities located in its primary market area; and

WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  has  determined  that in order to  adequately
assess and best serve the needs of the Holding  Company's  primary market area a
director must be knowledgeable  of and actively  involved in the communities the
Holding Company and its subsidiaries serves; and

WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors  believes,  based upon the  foregoing,  that it
would be  appropriate  and in the best interest of the Holding  Company and its
shareholders  to amend the Bylaws to require that all  directors be domiciled in
or have their primary place of business located in the Holding Company's primary
market area; and

WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors  has  considered  the size and diversity of the
population  base of its primary  market area, and believes that, if necessary or
if desired  there is a  sufficient  pool of  potentially  qualified  individuals
located  therein who would be available for  consideration  for  nomination as a
director of the Holding Company; and now therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Holding Company hereby approves the
adoption of an amendment to Article II of the Bylaws by adding the following new
Section 10, as follows:

     Section 10. Qualifications.  Any member of the Board of Directors shall, in
     order to qualify as such,  be domiciled in or have his or her primary place
     of business  located in the counties of  Schenectady,  Saratoga,  Albany or
     Rensselaer in the state of New York; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that the appropriate officers of the Holding Company be
and hereby are authorized and directed to take all action necessary to implement
the foregoing  resolutions and any action  previously  taken by such officers be
and hereby are approved, ratified and confirmed.
arc_ex107.htm

EXHIBIT 10.7
   
  
   
  	 
	1

	  

	 

   
   
   
    	 
	2

	  

	 


   
  
  3
Exhibit 99.6

 

Certification 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Amaya Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Rafael (Rafi) Ashkenazi, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Registrant.

 

|                                       |
|--------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Rafael (Rafi) Ashkenazi                |
| Name: Rafael (Rafi) Ashkenazi              |
| Title:   Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:   March 22, 2017           |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not, and shall not be deemed, incorporated by reference in the Report or any other filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted),
S. James Miller, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), and Wayne Wetherell, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated:
November 13, 2002

|/s/S. JAMES MILLER, JR.S. James Miller, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/WAYNE WETHERELLWayne Wetherell
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks