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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          70,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,534
<PP&E>                                         317,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                 178,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,486
<BONDS>                                          8,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   278,372
<SALES>                                        191,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,264
<CGS>                                          115,844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,364
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,341)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,350
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,822
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (22,242)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,412
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.24
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-628-001]


Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

November 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas 
Transmission LLC, (KMIGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-B, the following sheet, with an 
effective date of November 1, 2000:

Sub. First Revised Sheet No. 54A

    KMIGT states that the filing is being filed in compliance with the 
Commission's Order dated October 25, 2000 in this docket.
    KMIGT states that it has served copies of the filing upon the 
company's transportation service and storage customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30350 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERDUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.**

 

I, Satish Rishi, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of DuPont Photomasks, Inc;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 12, 2003

 
| /s/ SATISH  RISHI        |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Satish Rishi             |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 4.75



 Exhibit 4.75 
 [XM Letterhead] 
 July 28, 2008 
 Will Brett 
 Bank of America Tower 
 One Bryant Park 
 New York, NY 10036 
 Dear
Mr. Brett:
 Reference is made to (i) the Amended and Restated Note Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 16, 2003 (the
“Note Purchase Agreement”), by and among XM Satellite Radio Inc., a Delaware corporation, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (“XM Holdings”), and the investors named therein, and (ii) the
10% Senior Secured Discount Convertible Notes due 2009 (the “Notes”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Note Purchase Agreement. 
 Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 19, 2007 (the “Merger Agreement”) by and among Sirius Satellite Radio
Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Sirius”), Vernon Merger Corporation, a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Sirius (“Merger Co.”) and XM Holdings. Merger Co. merged with and into XM Holdings, with XM Holdings
as the surviving corporation on July 28, 2008 (the “Merger”). By virtue of the Merger, each share of XM Holdings Class A common stock outstanding at the time of the Merger was converted the right to receive 4.60 shares of
Sirius common stock, par value $0.001 per share. 
 Pursuant to Section 9.5 and Section 9.6 of the Note Purchase Agreement, XM
hereby confirms its obligation to deliver or cause to be delivered shares of Sirius common stock, par value $.001 per share, upon Conversion of the Notes pursuant to the terms of the Note Purchase Agreement. 







 Sincerely, 
  

			
	XM SATELLITE RADIO HOLDINGS INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph M. Titlebaum

	Name:	 	Joseph M. Titlebaum
	Title:	 	General Counsel and Secretary

 [10% Senior Secured Discount Convertible Notes]
#### CHILDRESS v. STATE.

No. 18571.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 9, 1936.

State’s Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1937.

M. C. Robinson and Warren W. Moore, both of Austin, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The indictment under which appellant was tried charged the offense of burglary and embraced averments showing that appellant had been twice previously convicted of felonies less than capital. Because of repetition of offenses, the penalty assessed was imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

One of the previous convictions relied upon by the State to enhance the penalty was, averred in the indictment to have occurred on the *26th day of November, 1926,*in the Criminal District Court of Travis County, Tex., “in a case numbered on the docket of said court, No. 19,101.” (Italics ours.) Also, it was averred that said conviction was for the “felony of assault with a prohibited weapon.” In support of said averments the State introduced in evidence a copy of an *103indictment alleging that appellant, on the 11th day of December, 1925, assaulted J. W. Daughdrill with a pistol. Also the State introduced a judgment of conviction showing that the verdict of the jury was returned on *October 21, 1926.*(Italics ours.) Sentence was pronounced *November 20, 1926.*(Italics ours.) Manifestly, the proof is at variance with the allegation in the indictment that the previous conviction was obtained November 26, 1926. It is the rule that, in alleging the former conviction, the court in which the conviction was obtained, the time of the conviction, and the nature of the offense, must be set forth. Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 75 S.W.(2d) 886. .The allegations mentioned relate to matters of substance. Morman v. State, supra. It follows that a variance between the proof and the allegation as to the date of the previous conviction is fatal. Morman v. State, supra.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. *1*

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 State’s Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

That there was a variance in the effort to prove the essential elements of the offense is not regarded as open to question. With the contention of State’s counsel that in the light of the record the variance was immaterial we are constrained to dissent. The appellant not only has the right to be advised by averment in the indictment as to the record of the former conviction against him, but he also has the right to be guarded against the hazard of the use by the State of the subsequent occasion of a conviction that has theretofore been used to enhance the penalty. Hence, the time of the former conviction is a material matter which must be proved as alleged in the indictment. We think the case of Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 75 S.W.(2d) 886, is correctly decided and that it supports the conclusion that the variance mentioned in the original opinion is fatal to the conviction.

The motion for rehearing* is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 3 through 5 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         159,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,502
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,786
<INVENTORY>                                    228,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               414,621
<PP&E>                                         630,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                 242,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,131,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          230,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     585,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,131,525
<SALES>                                        962,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               962,595
<CGS>                                          143,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               608,412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                195,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            195,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   195,294
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .016
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .016

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements No. 33-31505 on Form S-8, No. 33-50688 on Form S-8, No. 33-54387 on Form S-8, No. 33-52389 on Form S-8, No. 33-55629 on Form S-8, No. 333-32977 on Form S-8, No. 333-37145 on Form S-8,No. 333-79921 on Form S-8, No. 333-38174 on Form S-8, No. 333-53502 on Form S-8, No. 333-90954 on Form S-8, No. 333-97005 on Form S-8, No. 333-105914 on Form S-8, and No. 333-86955 on Form S-3 of our reports datedMarch 13, 2006, relating to the financial statements of AnnTaylor Stores Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AnnTaylor StoresCorporation for the year ended January 28, 2006. 

New York, NY 

March 22, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


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

        In connection with the Annual Report of Value City Department Stores,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John C. Rossler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

                (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



                          /s/ John C. Rossler
                          ------------------------------------------------------
                          John C. Rossler, President and Chief Executive Officer
May 1, 2003


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




                                      E-23
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00391-CV

Edward Heard, Stephanie Heard, M. Anderson Heard, 

and/or All Occupants of 1206 Walnut Street, Bastrop, Texas, Appellants

v.

VRM (Vendor Resource Management), Duly Authorized Agent 

for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BASTROP COUNTY,

NO. 15-17165, HONORABLE BENTON ESKEW, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on September 23,

2015. The clerk of this Court subsequently notified the appellants that the clerk’s record had not

been filed due to their failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the county court clerk’s fees for

preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that the appellants make arrangements for the

clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by October 9, 2015. Further, the

notice advised the appellants that their failure to comply with this request could result in the

dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, the appellants have not filed a status report

or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to the appellants’ failure to

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellants were entitled to proceed without

payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, the appellants have not established that they

are entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing procedure for

establishing indigence on appeal). Because the appellants have failed to pay or make arrangements

to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 23, 2015

2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA LUISA ZAVALZA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70338

Agency No. A073-863-085

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Maria Luisa Zavalza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due

FILED

JUN 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70338

process violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny

the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Zavalza fails to address, and therefore has waived any

challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that she failed to demonstrate the

evidence she submitted with the motion to reopen could not have been discovered

or presented at her former hearing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s

opening brief are waived); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). We therefore do not

reach Zavalza’s contentions regarding entry into the United States pursuant to

advance parole.

We reject as unpersuasive Zavalza’s contention, raised for the first time in

her opening brief, that she was prejudiced by the administrative record as filed by

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[No. 35529.

Department Two.

January 19, 1961.]

#### Maude W. Rutherford, *Appellant,*v. Frederick W. Rutherford, *Respondent.**1*

*Wright, Booth & Beresford (Paul M. Anderson,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Rosling, Williams, Lanza & Kastner*and *DeWitt Williams,*for respondent.

1

’Reported in 358 P. (2d) 553.

Per Curiam.

— The final judgment in this divorce case was entered in December, 1958, but the appellant’s brief was not filed in time to calendar the appeal before the September term, 1960. The case was orally argued November 14, 1960.

Both parties were awarded a divorce. Upon the wife’s appeal, she urges three points: (1) That she should have been awarded a larger portion of the husband’s professional earnings in the interval between the separation and the trial; (2) that her alimony allowance was inadequate; and (3) that the allowance for the care and support of the nine-year-old daughter awarded to her was inadequate.

*909The parties were married for twenty-one years. Respondent husband is a physician and surgeon. There are four children. Respondent husband was awarded custody of the three boys, one of whom suffers a serious physical defect which entails an added financial burden; appellant wife was awarded the custody of the nine-year-old daughter.

One half of the value of the community property, or $55,512.71, was awarded the appellant wife. In the interval between the separation and the trial of the divorce case, the unpaid professional earnings of the husband on his books amounted to $46,780.37. Of this sum, the decree awarded to the wife $13,125. The appellant urges that the true value was $37,597.19, and that she was entitled to half of this amount.

The method of division was explained by the trial court in the following manner.

> “Well, I am of the opinion that their market value would not be more than the fair, cash market value at which they could be liquidated without his constant services there, would not be more than 50 per cent of that amount. That is what I will allow, 50 per cent of the 26,000.”

Respondent husband was required to pay all of the community obligations which totaled $186,592.99. The record discloses that, in making the division of the husband’s earnings during the interval between the separation and the divorce, the trial court exercised the most painstaking care, and, in fixing the sum to be awarded the wife from these earnings at $13,125, we find nothing wrong.

The court made a property allowance to the appellant wife of $55,000. In addition, she is employed by the university of Washington as a music instructor. While there is a dispute between the parties as to the amount of her earnings, nevertheless, the court found that she did have an earning capacity and that she was but forty-two years of age, attractive and in good health. We see no reason for disturbing the allowance with respect to alimony.

The court awarded the custody of the nine-year-old daughter to the appellant wife and fixed the allowance of her support at one hundred fifty dollars a month until she became of age or married. We are unable to say that this amount is unreasonable.

The judgment is affirmed.