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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          72,157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,761
<PP&E>                                       1,054,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,181,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,219,616
<BONDS>                                      1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,534
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,047,831)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,181,319
<SALES>                                        101,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,459
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,524,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,356,099
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,963,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,963,554)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,963,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNION NO. 7 OF STATE OF TEXAS, OF BRICKLAYERS AND MASONS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. BRICK AND STONE MASONS UNION NO. 1 OF TEXAS, Defendant in Error.

No. 23228.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1938.

Sewell Myer, of Houston, for plaintiffs in error.

Thomas B. Lewis, of Houston, ^for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This application is dismissed, W. O. J., for the same reasons that we dismissed United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, of America, Carpenters Union No. 213, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Carpenters and Joiners Union of Texas, Defendant in Error, 120 S.W.2d 248.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James F. Lynch, ChiefExecutive 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, that tomy knowledge:

 

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/  James F. Lynch                               |       |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| **      James F. Lynch**      | ** ** |
|       Chief Executive Officer |       |

 

 

May 10, 2005

----
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT TEXARKANA 

DONALD RAY BROWN, 

 Appellant 

vs. Appellate Cause No. 06-14-00183-CR 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

APPELLANT'S FIRST MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: 

 COMES NOW the Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause and respectfully 

moves the Court in accordance with Tex. R. App. Pro. Rule 38.6 (d), to extend the time for filing 

Appellant's Brief in this cause, and in support therefore would respectfully show unto the Court 

as follows: 

I. 

 The certified Clerk's Record was timely filed on the 30th day of January, 2015, and the 

certified Reporter's Record was timely filed on the 8th day of April, 2015. 

II. 

 The current deadline for filing Appellant's Brief is the 11th day of May, 2015. 

III. 

The undersigned attorney has not had sufficient time to prepare Appellant's brief within 

the currently prescribed time allotted and hereby requests an additional thirty (30) days in which 

to prepare the brief. More specifically, undersigned attorney has been preparing for pretrial 

hearings and trial in the following cases: 

ACCEPTED

06-14-00183-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

5/11/2015 12:00:00 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/11/2015 8:13:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

1. United States vs Kevin Bolton, Cause No. 6:14CR60003-001, United States District 

Court for the Western District of Arkansas, a potential federal death penalty case wherein 

the undersigned is currently developing the defendant’s mitigation case to be presented to 

the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Arkansas and to the 

United States Department of Justice in an effort to avoid authorization to seek the death 

penalty. 

IV. 

Appellant's attorney has not previously requested an extension of time to file the Brief in 

this cause. 

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests this 

Honorable Court extend the time for filing his brief in this cause until the 11th day of June, 2015. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

CRAIG L. HENRY 

Attorney at Law 

 723 Main Street 

 P.O. Box 3226 

 Texarkana, Texas 75504-3226 

 (903) 792-4645 

 FAX - (903) 792-5073 

Lawyrntx@aol.com

By/s/ Craig L. Henry 

 Craig L. Henry 

 Arkansas Bar # 90142 

 Oklahoma Bar # 016779 

 Texas Bar # 09479260 

 Attorney for Appellant 
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion has been delivered 

electronically and via courier to Mr. Jerry Rochelle, Bowie County District Attorney, 601 Main 

Street, Texarkana, Texas 75501, this 9th day of August, 2015. 

 /s/ Craig L. Henry 

 Craig L. Henry
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1543 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1543

   To amend title 28, United States Code to permit payment, from the 
Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, of State and local taxes 
                      on certain seized property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 1993

 Mr. Hochbrueckner (for himself, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Smith 
of New Jersey, Mr. Blackwell, and Mr. Nadler) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code to permit payment, from the 
Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, of State and local taxes 
                      on certain seized property.

    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 ``Forfeiture Equity Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES ON FORFEITED 
              PROPERTY.

    Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section 524 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph 
        (I) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``; and''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(J) the payment of State and local property taxes 
                on forfeited property, beginning on the date of the 
                offense giving rise to the forfeiture.''.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply with respect to 
property seized before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           25936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    35364
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1260
<INVENTORY>                                        355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 63954
<PP&E>                                           19159
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   93103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         50514
<OTHER-SE>                                       10313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     93103
<SALES>                                          28614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 28614
<CGS>                                             7892
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    15755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1607
<INCOME-TAX>                                       680
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1438 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1438

To prohibit any Federal agency or official, in carrying out any Act or 
 program to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate 
    change, from imposing a fee or tax on gaseous emissions emitted 
                         directly by livestock.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2009

 Mr. Fortenberry introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit any Federal agency or official, in carrying out any Act or 
 program to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate 
    change, from imposing a fee or tax on gaseous emissions emitted 
                         directly by livestock.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF IMPOSITION OF FEE OR TAX ON GASEOUS EMISSIONS 
              BY LIVESTOCK.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in carrying out any Act 
or program to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate 
change, no Federal agency or official shall impose a fee or tax on 
gaseous emissions emitted directly by livestock.
                                 <all>
```
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 7938 7956 7964 7891 7858 7898 7895 7916 7896 7912 7879 7906

2002 7937 7937 7936 7870 7896 7853 7888 7889 7867 7907 7875 7889

2003 7546 7559 7599 7637 7556 7542 7522 7540 7520 7501 7398 7502

2004 7534 7507 7590 7481 7616 7732 7838 8026 7794 7637 7483 7537

2005 7436 7451 7642 7677 7791 7858 7868 7825 7573 7514 7380 7417

2006 7544 7447 7559 7636 7624 7752 7874 7788 7496 7357 7475 7515

2007 7635 7758 7764 7703 7672 7788 7869 7814 7755 7731 7738 7896

2008 7809 7931 7833 7928 8183 8073 8125 8038 7852 7831 7750 7955

2009 8143 8126 8131 8041 8094 8104 8255 8155 8061 8067 7998 8023

2010 8085 8081 8166 8104 7978 8041 8249 7978 7674 7645 7703 7782

2011 7936 7961 8040 8088

Civilian noninstitutional population

Number in thousands

18 to 19 years

2001 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU00000088

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Population Level - 18-19 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 24, 2011 (01:52:55 PM)
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Annual

7909

7895

7535

7648

7619

7589

7760

7942

8100

7957

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 24, 2011 (01:52:55 PM)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8004** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ALAN KING LITTLE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:11

- cr - 00169

- HMH

- 1; 6:13

- cv - 02803

- HMH )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Alan King Little, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alan King Little seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge i ssues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- E l v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




Summary of Non-Management Director Compensation




     On September 18, 2008, the Board of Directors of The Williams Companies, Inc. approved the
following annual compensation for non-management directors payable on the date of the company’s
Annual Meeting of Stockholders:



	 	 	 
	Board cash retainer

	 	$110,000
	 
	 	 
	Restricted stock units

	 	$115,000 in value (the number of restricted stock units to be
awarded will be based on the closing common stock price
on the date of grant)
	 
	 	 
	Additional cash retainers:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Lead Director

	 	$25,000
	Audit Committee Chair

	 	$20,000
	Compensation Committee Chair

	 	$15,000
	Other Committee Chairs

	 	$10,000
	Special litigation committee member

	 	$10,000
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF NUMEREX CORP.


<TABLE>
<S>                                                  <C>
Broadband Networks, Inc.                             (Tier 1)
DCX Systems, Inc.                                    (Tier 1)
Digilog, Inc.                                        (Tier 1)
Numerex Investment Corp.                             (Tier 1)
         BNI Solutions LLC                           (Tier 2)
         DCX Systems (Australia) Pty Limited         (Tier 2)
         Numerex Solutions LLC                       (Tier 2)
         MobileGuardian LLC                          (Tier 2)
Cellemetry LLC(1)
         Uplink Security, Inc.                       (Tier 2)
</TABLE>

Tier 1 subsidiaries are those owned directly by Numerex Corp. Tier 2 are
subsidiaries of Numerex Corp.'s subsidiaries.

(1)Prior to March 28, 2003 the Company owned 60%. Cingular Wireless LLC owned
the remaining 40%. After March 28, 2003 the Company owned 100%.
/*!
 * jQuery UI Support for jQuery core 1.8.x and newer 1.13.2
 * http://jqueryui.com
 *
 * Copyright jQuery Foundation and other contributors
 * Released under the MIT license.
 * http://jquery.org/license
 *
 */
!function(e){"use strict";"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define(["jquery","./version"],e):e(jQuery)}((function(e){"use strict";if(e.expr.pseudos||(e.expr.pseudos=e.expr[":"]),e.uniqueSort||(e.uniqueSort=e.unique),!e.escapeSelector){var n=/([\0-\x1f\x7f]|^-?\d)|^-$|[^\x80-\uFFFF\w-]/g,t=function(e,n){return n?"\0"===e?"�":e.slice(0,-1)+"\\"+e.charCodeAt(e.length-1).toString(16)+" ":"\\"+e};e.escapeSelector=function(e){return(e+"").replace(n,t)}}e.fn.even&&e.fn.odd||e.fn.extend({even:function(){return this.filter((function(e){return e%2==0}))},odd:function(){return this.filter((function(e){return e%2==1}))}})}));
//# sourceMappingURL=jquery-patch-min.js.map
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Ingram, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant, who was convicted of rape and sodomy in the first degree and petit larceny, argues on appeal that the court erred in allowing a police officer’s testimony that the victim identified defendant at a lineup. He contends that the People failed to establish that the victim was unable to state on the basis of present recollection whether defendant was her assailant (CPL 60.25). We agree with the trial court that the People met their burden by the victim’s testimony, following her description of her assailant, that she did not see her assailant in the courtroom *(see*
      *896
      *generally, People v Bayron,*66 NY2d 77, 81; *People v Cwikla,*46 NY2d 434, 444).

Defendant also contends that his request for counsel at the lineup was improperly denied because, earlier that day, he had been arraigned on an unrelated burglary charge and had been told that an attorney would be assigned to represent him. Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that counsel had in fact been assigned, and thus, his request for the presence of counsel at the lineup was "insufficient to trigger an official obligation to notify defense counsel of the opportunity to be present at a lineup when no counsel has been otherwise engaged or appointed *(see, People v Johnson*and *People v Laffosse,*55 NY2d 474, 484-485)” *(People v LaClere,*76 NY2d 670, 673).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find none that has merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
exv10w2






Exhibit
10.2
 

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE MGM MIRAGE

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN II




     WHEREAS, Section 11.2 of the MGM MIRAGE Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan II (the “Plan”)
provides that the Plan may be amended in whole or in part by the Board of Directors of MGM MIRAGE
(the “Board”), provided that no amendment or modification shall decrease or restrict the value of a
Participant’s vested account balance in existence at the time of such amendment or modification;
and



     WHEREAS, the Board has authorized and approved this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan (this
“Amendment”).



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of November 4, 2008, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     1. Section 3.1(f) of the Plan shall be amended to add the following sentence at the end
thereof:



     Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no Annual Company Contribution Amounts shall
be credited to the account of any Participant with respect to any calendar quarter commencing on or
after October 1, 2008; provided, however, that a Participant shall continue to vest in Annual
Company Contribution Amounts credited prior to such date in accordance with Section 3.2 of the
Plan.



     2. Article 11 of the Plan shall be amended to add the following new Section 11.5:



     Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Committee, in its sole discretion and to
the extent it deems appropriate, may permit Participants to make changes to existing payment
elections prior to December 31, 2008 or such earlier date as the Committee may specify. Any
election changes made pursuant to this Section 11.5 may not defer into later years amounts that
would have been payable in 2008 or cause payment of amounts payable in later years to be
accelerated into 2008. Elections under this section 11.5 shall comply in all respects with the
provisions of Internal Revenue Service Notice 2007-86 and other applicable Internal Revenue Service
and Treasury guidance.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by a duly authorized officer as of the date set
forth below.



MGM MIRAGE




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ John M. McManus
	 	 	 	Date:
	 	November 4, 2008
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	John M. McManus,	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Senior Vice President,	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Assistant General Counsel & Assistant Secretary