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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,513
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,480
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,569
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,185
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        145,947
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 201,194
<DEPOSITS>                                     184,834
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                792
<LONG-TERM>                                        434
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,864
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 201,194
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,500
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,503
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   505
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,508
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,477
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,508
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      330
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (8)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,540
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         965
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       965
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.43
<LOANS-NON>                                        284
<LOANS-PAST>                                       255
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,211
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      101
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,447
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,447
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,435,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               50,662,620<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,900,017
<INVENTORY>                                 89,644,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           146,367,829
<PP&E>                                       5,490,251
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,455,453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             179,356,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       78,893,458
<BONDS>                                     11,142,857<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,563
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,583,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               179,356,771
<SALES>                                     94,241,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           100,461,845
<CGS>                                       70,534,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               70,534,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,431,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,690,634
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,169,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,521,287
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,521,287
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
<FN>
<F1>Net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,900,017
<F2>Comprised of Long-term debt
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2498

SIRAJ SHEIKH, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. GEISLER, Defendant - Appellant, and JAMES F. O'CONNOR; INVEST IN AMERICA, L.P.; INTERBANK CORPORATE SERVICES, INCORPORATED; DOMINION INDUSTRIES, L.L.C.; MARKET MAKERS, L.L.C.; ILENE MARIE HARRISON; JOHN L. CRINER, II; STEVEN R. MAIMON; INTERBANK IMMIGRATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC FOREX, LIMITED; INTELLINET CORPORATE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1974-A) Submitted: May 24, 2001 Decided: June 1, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Geisler, Appellant Pro Se. David Alan Hirsch, VAN GILS & HIRSCH, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: James A. Geisler appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and entering judgment for the Plaintiff following a jury trial in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Geisler’s motion for a new trial. Chesapeake Paper Products Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. , 51 F.3d 1229, 1237. We decline to review Geisler’s claims challenging the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss. Id. at 1234-37. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### LINDSEY v. STATE.

No. 19666.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1938.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1938.

• Kirby, King" & Overshiner, of Abilene, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for-the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of property over the value of $50; the punishment, two years’ confinement in the State Penitentiary.

Mrs. Leeper testified for the State that she was a widow ; that on or about the 8th day of May, 1937, some one came to her place and without" her knowledge and consent took- thirty-eiedit boiler flues. Sam Lindsey, a brother of the appellant, testified that on or -about the same day he and Flippen were employed by appellant to haul some boiler flues for him to Abilene; that appellant fold them the flues belonged to him. Appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf, but cdntehded 'that the stolen property was. not of sufficient value to bring it within the category- of a felony. There was quite an- issue raised as to the value of the property. ■ The. testimony shows that the flues were about 16 feet in length, 31⁄2 inches in diameter, and weighed about 50 pounds each and were 1⁄8 good condition. The trial .court correctly required the jury to find that the flues were of the value of $50 at the time and place they were taken.

Appellant has brought, forward a number of excéptións relating to the manner and method of proving the value of the flues at the time and place of. taking. Mr. Britton, who qualified as knowing the market value of boiler flues in Fisher county on the date of- the alleged offense, testified that the value of flues of the kind and character in question was about 41 cents per foot. Other witnesses1 testified to lower values. There was also testimony. as to the market value of the kind and 'character of the flues in question at Abilene, some 37 miles from the place where they were taken in Fisher county, less the cost of transportation. We think this testimony was admissible to show such market value in view of the modern means of transportation. Due to-this factor,-market value is affected but little by distance.

Moreover, the determination of the question of value was within the province of the jury under an appropriate instruction from the court, and this court would not be justified in disturbing their findings under such circumstances.

*448All other matters complained of have been examined by us and are deemed to be without merit.

The judgment of the trial cpurt 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.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

A re-examination of the record in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing leaves us of opinion that bills of exception 1 to 5, inclusive, fail to present reversible error.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 794 LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 001464

_____________________________
D ERRICK D UVAL H UNTER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County

. R. Lee Smith , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Darnelle Paige Lawshe
, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

November 28, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , J AY , and H ARRIS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
EXHIBIT 10.11(f)

August 15,
2003

Mr. Robert
Urban
Vice President, Technical Operations
Cephalon, Inc.
145 Brandywine Parkway
West Chester, PA 19380



This
letter is to confirm our agreement to amend the Toll Manufacturing and Packaging Agreement dated as of August 24, 1999, as amended by Amendment No.1 dated July 3,
2001, by Amendment No. 2 dated October 9, 2001, by Amendment No. 3 dated June 21, 2002, and by Amendment No. 4 dated April 28, 2003 (collectively, the
"Agreement"), between Cephalon, Inc. ("Cephalon") and DSM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("DSM"). All terms not otherwise defined herein are used as defined in the Agreement.

The
purpose of this Amendment No. 5 is to update the Tolling Fees for Product listed in existing Schedule E to include Provigil Aqueous Formulation Tablets. The Agreement
is hereby amended as follows:



If
you agree with Amendment No. 5 as stated herein, please sign both copies of this amendment in the space below and return one signed original to me.

Sincerely,

|                                                                                |                    |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ |  | 
|/s/TERENCE S. NOVAKTerence S. Novak
Senior Vice President Commercial Operations |                    | 
|Amendment No. 5 accepted and agreed:                                            |                    | 
|CEPHALON, INC.                                                                  |                    | 
|By:                                                                             | /s/ROBERT J. URBAN |  | 
|Name: Robert J. Urban
Title: Vice President, Manufacturing & Engineering       

---

Schedule E
Tolling Fees

Cephalon shall pay DSM the following amounts in consideration of the formulations and packaging services rendered hereunder:

Current Formulation
(Compressil Formula)

New Formulation
(Aqueous Formula)Provigil 100mg, bulk tablets

[**]

[**]Provigil 100mg, 100 count bottles

[**]

[**]


Current Formulation
(Compressil Formula)

New Formulation
(Aqueous Formula)Provigil 200mg, bulk tablets

[**]

[**]Provigil 200mg, 100 count bottles

[**]

[**]


The
above prices do not include the cost of Modafinil or Magnerium Silicate (Compressil), but do include packaging material costs. These prices are based on batches being campaigned once
per quarter.

Annual
price increases will be invoked as per Section IV of the Toll Manufacturing and Packaging Agreement (dated August 24, 1999) (the "Agreement"). The review of the
annual pricing is based on the Producer Price Index (PPI) for the prior year Pharmaceutical Preparations, series code
PCU-2834# as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor.

A-1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                      ROSS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           SUBSIDIARY                                             PLACE OF INCORPORATION
           -----------------------------------------------------  -----------------------------------------------------
<C>        <S>                                                    <C>
       1.  Cardinal Data Corporation                              Massachusetts, USA
       2.  Ross Systems (U.K.) Ltd.                               United Kingdom
       3.  RossData Canada Limited                                Canada
       4.  Ross Computer Software B.V.                            The Netherlands
       5.  Ross Systems Nederland B.V.                            The Netherlands
       6.  Ross Systems France S.A.                               France
       7.  Ross Systems Europe N.V.                               Belgium
       8.  Pioneer Software, Inc.                                 California, USA
       9.  Ross Systems Deutschland GmbH                          Germany
      10.  Ross Systems Iberica                                   Spain
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41548

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN LEONIDES-JAIMES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-182-ALL 

--------------------

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Leonides-Jaimes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for being found in the United States, without

permission, following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. For the first time on appeal, Leonides-Jaimes argues

that the district court erred by enhancing his base offense level

sixteen levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii), based

on a determination that his prior convictions for conspiring to

transport and transporting aliens within the United States were
No. 02-41548

-2-

alien smuggling offenses. In United States v. Solis-Campozano,

312 F.3d 164, 167-68 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct.

1811 (2003), this court held that the term “alien smuggling

offense,” as used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) includes the

offense of transporting aliens within the United States. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in sentencing

Leonides-Jaimes under that guideline.

Leonides-Jaimes also argues, for the first time on appeal,

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a

prior conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a

sentencing factor and not an element of an offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. Leonides-Jaimes’s argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998). Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000), did not overrule that

decision. See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th

Cir. 2000). The district court did not err in sentencing

Leonides-Jaimes under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).

Leonides-Jaimes concedes that both of his appellate

arguments are foreclosed. He raises the issues solely to

preserve them for possible further review. Because LeonidesJaimes’s arguments are foreclosed, the district court has filed a

motion requesting summary affirmance of the district court’s

judgment. The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 190 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 190

 To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy 
   efficiency standards to certain security or life safety alarms or 
             surveillance systems, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 2017

  Mr. Gardner (for himself and Ms. Cantwell) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy 
   efficiency standards to certain security or life safety alarms or 
             surveillance systems, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Power And Security Systems (PASS) 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD MODE ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
              STANDARD TO CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE SAFETY ALARM OR 
              SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.

    (a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2015'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``2021''; and
            (2) by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2023''.
    (b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``July 1, 2017,'' and 
        inserting ``the effective date of the amendment under 
        subparagraph (D)(ii)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) Treatment in rule.--In the rule 
                        under subparagraph (D)(ii) and subsequent 
                        amendments the Secretary may treat some or all 
                        external power supplies designed to be 
                        connected to a security or life safety alarm or 
                        surveillance system as a separate product class 
                        or may extend the nonapplication under clause 
                        (ii).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      This Certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report of SVB
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. To the best of their knowledge, the undersigned, in their respective
capacities as set forth below, hereby certify 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 operation
            of the Company.


/s/ Robert P. Corcoran
-------------------------------------------
Robert P. Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer            Date: August 16, 2004


/s/ Keith B. McCarthy
-------------------------------------------
Keith B. McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer             Date: August 16, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to SVB Financial Services, Inc. and
will be retained by SVB Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.