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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,250
<PP&E>                                         140,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,360
<BONDS>                                        162,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     37,096
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,965
<SALES>                                         45,409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,166
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   750
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,963
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,650
<INCOME-TAX>                                       330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,320
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Krupp  Government  Income Trust II (the
"Trust") on Form 10-K for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Wayne
Zarozny,  Chief Accounting Officer of the Trust, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2003,
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 Trust as of  December  31,  2004 (the last date of the period
            covered by the Report).


/s/ Wayne Zarozny
-----------------
Wayne Zarozny,
Chief Accounting Officer

Date: March 16, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30904

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRYAN LEE ADDINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:16-CR-98-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bryan Lee 

Addington has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Addington has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

 

* 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

January 14, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30904 Document: 00514793360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
No. 17-30904

Conference Calendar

2

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

In light of the court’s recent decision in United States v. Lucero, ___ F. 

App’x ___, No. 17-50709, 2018 WL 6200326 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018), we remand 

to the district court for the limited purpose of re-entering its corrected order.

 Case: 17-30904 Document: 00514793360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS   SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF
EARNINGS  AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET  FOR  THE
PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 30, 1997 FILED WITH THE  SECURITIES  AND
EXCHANGE  COMMISSION ON FORM 10-Q AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                            1,038,981
<SECURITIES>                      4,200,734
<RECEIVABLES>                       666,104
<ALLOWANCES>                         75,331
<INVENTORY>                       1,490,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,459,203
<PP&E>                              865,846
<DEPRECIATION>                      235,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   10,359,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,260,371
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              7,600
<OTHER-SE>                       16,743,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     10,359,644
<SALES>                           1,285,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,285,637
<CGS>                               891,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     3,207,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,591,053)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,591,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,591,053)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.34)
                                           

        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ADVANCEPCS AMENDED AND RESTATED
                       1997 NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN

The AdvancePCS Amended and Restated 1997 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended, effective November 1, 2001, in the following
respects:

1. The first sentence of Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to
read as follows: "Subject to adjustment as provided in Sections 4(g) and (h)
hereof, options may be granted by the Company from time to time to purchase up
to an aggregate of 800,000 shares of the Company's authorized but unissued
Common Stock; provided, however, that the number of Shares that may be granted
to any person under the Plan shall be reasonable in relation to the purpose of
the Plan."

2. In all other respects the Plan shall remain unmodified and in full force and
effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company has executed this
Amendment to be effective as provided above.


                                          AdvancePCS

                                          By: /s/ DAVID D. HALBERT
                                             -----------------------------------
                                          David D. Halbert Chairman of the Board
                                          and Chief Executive Officer
----

| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Exhibit 99.1 | Press Release dated November 1, 2011 issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| Exhibit No. | Description                                                                  |
|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1        | Press Release, dated November 1, 2011, issued by First Merchants Corporation |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2100

EMMETT JOHNSON JAFARI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF RICHMOND, Municipal Corporation,

Authorized Agents and Representatives Thereof,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-830)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 13, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmett Johnson Jafari, Appellant Pro Se. Beverly Agee Burton, Assistant City Attorney, Keith Allen May, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Emmett Jafari appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the City of Richmond and denying his

own motion for summary judgment in his civil action against the

City of Richmond concerning the City’s termination of his employment as a security manager. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jafari v. City of

Richmond, No. CA-97-830 (E.D. Va. June 24, 1998). We dispense with

oral 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
### BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON DC



## Proposal Under the Small Community

Air Service Development Program

DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 2011

- 0119

Sponsored by



### TOWN OF MASSENA, NEW YORK

Community DUNS Number

– 077308237

Employee Identification Nu mber (EIN)

– 156001040

Congressional District Code

– 23

Submitted July 30 , 201 1

All communications with respect to this document should be sent to :

Joseph D. Gray

Supervisor

Town of Massena

60 Main Street

Massena, New York 13662

Tel: 315

- 769

- 3588

Fax: 315

- 769

- 7957

Email: supervisor@town.massena.ny.us
Order entered January 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01223-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 469-55837-2013

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2019 motion to abate the appeal. Appellant 

seeks the abatement because the trial court has not filed findings of fact and conclusions of law 

despite a proper request under the rules of civil procedure. We GRANT the motion as follows. 

We ORDER the Honorable Piper McCraw, Presiding Judge of the 469th Judicial District 

Court, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil 

Procedure 297 no later than January 23, 2019. The findings of fact and conclusions of law shall 

be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court no later than January 28, 2019. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Judge McCraw, 

Collin County District Clerk Lynne Finley, and all counsel of record.

We ABATE the appeal, including the deadline to file appellant’s brief, to allow the trial 

court an opportunity to comply with this order. The appeal will be reinstated no later than 

January 31, 2019. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001012884
<NAME>  RUTHERFORD-MORAN OIL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,925
<PP&E>                                         293,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,127
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           256
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   327,403
<SALES>                                         27,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,882
<CGS>                                           18,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,667)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,593)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  7,452
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,526)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.15)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS VALENTINE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 236 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS VALENTINE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 237 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS et al.

No. 8783.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Oct. 17, 1938.

PER CURIAM.

It having been brought to the attention of the court that in a suit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Cause No. 3589-Law, styled Shell Petroleum Corporation, v. R. -M. Wood et al., a plea in abatement has been filed, predicated upon the assertion that the judgment of this court adjudicates ■ issues affecting the title to the property upon which the Railroad Commission’s order herein involved, granted a permit to drill an oil well as an exception to Rule 37, this order is entered for the purpose of defining the scope of our said adjudication.

It is thereupon ordered that the question of the title to said land was not involved in this cause, either in the trial court or in this court, and the judgments of the trial court and of this court in no way adjudicated or attempted to adjudicate such title. The only issue involved in this cause in so far as the title was concerned was whether a bona fide dispufe as to title within the meaning of that term as construed by this court for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission was presented by the record as made in the trial court. We held, and now hold that such record did not show the existence of such bona fide dispute as to said title. This was, and is the extent of this court’s adjudication.
**EXHIBIT 23.01****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-127441, 333-108604, 333-64418, 333-64092, 333-05769 and 33-81894) pertaining to the 2001 StockOption Plan, the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1995 Stock Option Plan of GenelabsTechnologies, Inc. and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-108608, 333-135835 and333-140712) and the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 9, 2007, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Genelabs Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP   Palo Alto, California
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

d0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137599

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137599 COA: 279202 Wayne CC: 06-003231-01 THOMAS LEIGH, III, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 11, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### TEXLITE, Inc., v. PECOS MERCANTILE CO.

No. 1997-6693.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

July 22, 1936.

Leake, Henry & Young and Hawkins ■Golden, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Wagstaff, Harwell, Wagstaff & Douthit, of Abilene, for defendant in error.

HICKMAN, Commissioner.

The Court of Civil Appeals has correctly decided this case. For its opinion see Pecos Mercantile Co. v. Texlite, Inc., 65 S.W.(2d) 811. The only question decided by that court was one of venue. We have examined the controverting plea to the plea of • privilege and find that it is insufficient to present any issue of es-toppel or fraud. It is true that in paragraph 4 of the plea it is stated that the court has venue by virtue of article 1995, subd. 5, and subdivision 7, as- amended by Acts 1927, 1st Called Sess., c. 72, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 7), but the specific allegations of fact all relate to subdivision 5 and no facts are alleged under which venue could be sustained under subdivision 7. Subdivision 5, in substance, provides that suit may be brought in the county in which the defendant has contracted in writing to perform an obligation. Subdivision 7 provides that suit may be brought in the county in which fraud is committed.

It is required by article 2007 that the controverting plea set out specifically the fact or facts relied upon to confer venue of the cause on the court where *74same is pending. This requirement is not met by a general allegation that the court has venue in virtue of a given exception. Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502, 509, 240 S.W. 896; World Co. v. Dow, 116 Tex. 146, 287 S.W. 241; Richardson v. Cage Co., 113 Tex. 152, 252 S.W. 747; Duffy v. Cole Petroleum Co., 117 Tex. 387, 5 S.W. (2d) 495.

The controverting plea is sufficiently specific to- present the issue of whether the defendant in error contracted in writing to perform an obligation in the county in which this suit was instituted. That is the only question properly presented for decision, and, since the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals thereon meets with our approval, no reason is perceived for writing further upon it. We discern no conflict between that holding and the holding of the San Antonio court in Hart v. Wynne (Tex.Civ.App.) 40 S.W. 848, relied upon by plaintiff in error.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Apr peals will be affirmed.

Opinion adopted by 'the Supreme Court.
----

**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (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.  |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  November                  7, 2006 |   |                                                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     | By:    |  /s/                  Konstantin Tsirulnikov                |   |
|                                                     |   | Konstantin                  Tsirulnikov                          |   |
|                                                     |   | Chairman,                  President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----