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

<ARTICLE>                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                     2681
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              1411
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                               48869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          57987
<PP&E>                                                    37687
<DEPRECIATION>                                            13429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            88705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     16089
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                     60
<OTHER-SE>                                                52231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              88705
<SALES>                                                   42873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          42873
<CGS>                                                     24766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             24766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          17854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (190)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00442

- CV
YORK, WHITMAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A YORK, WHITMAN AND ASSOCIATES v. XO PRODUCE, INC.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. CL

- 13

- 1071

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 17, 2013
#### Hoffman *&*Billings Mfg. Co. et al. v. The Haxton Steam Heater Co. et al.

Chancery—Practice.—-A bill in chancery brought in the court below by appellants against A, B and C; 0 filed a demurrer to the bill which the court sustained; ane. .entered an order dismissing the bill as to C, but the case was left undisposed of as to A and B. Complainants appealed from the order. *Held,*that appeal or error will not lie. The order was not final.

Appeal from the Circuit Oourt of Cook county ; the Hon-Thomas A. Moran, Judge, presiding.

Opinion filed April 7, 1886.

Mr. H. F. White, for appellants.

Messrs. Stiles *&*Leaves, for appellees.

*485McAllister, J.

This was a bill in chancery, brought in the court below by the appellants against Henry T. Lally, Edward G-. Asay and the Haxton Steam Heater Company. The latter filed a demurrer to the bill, which the court sustained, and entered an order dismissing the hill as to that defendant, but the case was left undisposed of as to the other two defendants. In that condition of the case the complainants appealed from that order. Appeal or error will not lie. The order was not final. Such a case can not be pending partly in this court and partly in the court of original jurisdiction at the same time. Mor can appellate courts be required to decide cases piecemeal. To do so would, in many eases, abrogate the rule requiring that in courts of equity all necessary parties must be before the court. Thompson v. Follansbee, 55 Ill. 427, is directly in point. The appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Moran, J. took no part in the decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          63,589
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                       422
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,706
<PP&E>                                           4,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,908
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,281
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   322
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,072)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.14)


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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    473,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,089,478
<PP&E>                                         416,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                 277,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,399,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,741,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,179
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,596,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,399,499
<SALES>                                         55,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,803
<CGS>                                           40,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               511,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             311,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (807,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (807,979)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
### SERVED: JULY 31,2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION FAADOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0620
HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on September 29 and 30, 2014, in Courtroom TBA, U.S. District Court, Northern District ofIllinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 1 Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties shouldvacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day. Settled cases will notbe removed from the docket until the Judgereceives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings maybeforwarded by fax, express mail, courier orpostal service
.

....s·
Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1The parties should confirm the courtroom with Larry Collins, Administrative Assistant to the ChiefJudge, Room 2530A [312-435-5603; FAX 312-408-5088], prior to or on the day ofhearing. 1SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Great Lakes Region Federal Aviation Administration 2300 EastDevonAvenue, AGL-7 Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7862 FAX: 847-294-7498 ONE COPY

Martin A. Blumenthal, Respondent's Counsel Attorney One Northfield Plaza, Suite 300 Northfield, IL 60093 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin; Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0620 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of addition of a company to the Section 1260H List of Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States.

# SUMMARY:

                            The Deputy Secretary of Defense has determined that the entity listed in the                             **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                             section of this notice qualifies as a “Chinese military company” in accordance with the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.                        

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Devante Brown (GIES), (703) 695-8545.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                        Section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) requires the Secretary of Defense to make additions or deletions to the most recent list of “Chinese military companies” on an ongoing basis based on the latest information. Paragraph (b)(2) of this section requires the Secretary of Defense to publish the unclassified portion of such list in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has determined that the following entity qualifies as a “Chinese military company” in accordance with section 1260H:

Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. (Hesai)

Dated: October 24, 2024.

Aaron T. Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2024-25169 Filed 10-28-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 4.3

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                               VNB CAPITAL TRUST I

     This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of October 4, 2001 for the
purposes of organizing a business trust pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust
Act, 12 Del. C. Section 3801, et seq. (the "Act").

     The undersigned hereby certify as follows:

     1. NAME. The name of the business trust is "VNB Capital Trust I" (the
"Trust").

     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the Delaware resident
trustee of the Trust meeting the requirements of Section 3807 of the Act are as
follows:

     The Bank of New York (Delaware)
     White Clay Center
     Route 273
     Newark, Delaware  19711

     3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective immediately
upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as trustees of the Trust, have duly
executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act
as of the day and year first above written.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE),
as Delaware Trustee

By: /s/ WILLIAM T. LEWIS                /s/ GERALD H. LIPKIN
    ---------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
    William T. Lewis, Senior Vice       Gerald H. Lipkin, Administrative Trustee
    President


/s/ ALAN D. ESKOW                       /s/ JACK BLACKIN
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Alan D. Eskow, Administrative Trustee   Jack Blackin, Administrative Trustee
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 450

To amend title 37, United States Code, to authorize additional special 
   pay for board certified veterinarians in the Armed Forces and the 
                         Public Health Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 1999

  Mr. Allard introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 37, United States Code, to authorize additional special 
   pay for board certified veterinarians in the Armed Forces and the 
                         Public Health Service.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PAY FOR BOARD CERTIFIED VETERINARIANS IN 
              THE ARMED FORCES AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.

    (a) Authority.--Section 303 of title 37, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) Monthly Special Pay.--'' before 
        ``Each''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Additional Special Pay for Board Certification.--A 
commissioned officer entitled to special pay under subsection (a) who 
has been awarded a diploma as a Diplomate in a specialty recognized by 
the American Veterinarian Medical Association is entitled to special 
pay (in addition to the special pay under that subsection) at the same 
rate as is provided under section 302c(b) of this title for an officer 
referred to in that section who has the same number of years of 
creditable service as the commissioned officer.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Section 303(b) of title 37, United States 
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to months 
beginning after September 30, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7423

QUINCY A. LOWERY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, Warden Broad River Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:08-cv-02526-GRA)

Submitted: March 24, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quincy A. Lowery, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Quincy A. Lowery seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Lowery 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
[exhibit32pfochairman22809002.gif] [exhibit32pfochairman22809004.gif] 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   I, Richard Pomije,
the Chief Executive Officer of DigitalTown, Inc. (the "Company") in compliance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2009, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.     Date:   April
15, 2009
Signed:
/s/
Richard PomijeName:
Richard
PomijeTitle:
Chairman,
Director
Principal
Executive Officer
#### The State v. Dougherty.

1. Criminal Law: increase or fine aster judgment entered. Under the decisions of the courts in this country and in England, (see authorities in opinion,) as well as under § 178 of the Code, a court has authority, after it has entered judgment of afine against a defendant, at the same term, and before any part of the judgment has been performed, to set the judgment aside, and enter another judgment imposing a heavier penalty.

*Appeal from Buchanan District Court.*

Tuesday, December 21.

The defendant was charged by indictment witb the crime of nuisance. ELe pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court *440entered judgment against him, imposing a fine and the costs of the proceeding. Afterwards, at the same term, and before any part of the judgment had been performed, the court set the judgment aside, and entered another judgment against him, imposing a greater fine than was imposed by the first judgment, and from that order defendant appealed.

*E. E. Easne-r,*for defendant.

*A. J. JBaJcer, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Need, J.

There was no question as to the validity of the judgment first entered. All the proceedings anterior to it were regular. It was entered in regular form, and the penalty imposed by it was such as the court had the power to impose for the offense charged in-the indictment. The question in the case is whether the court, after it had entered a judgment in regular form against the defendant, had the power, at the same term and before any part of the judgment had been performed, to set that judgment aside, and enter another judgmént against him imposing a heavier penalty. The power of the courts to revise, correct and change their sentences, at the term at which they are pronounced, and before anything has been done under them, has long been recognized both in this country and in England; and the cases are numerous in which the power has been exercised. See *Com. v. Weymouth,*2 Allen, 144; *U. S. v. Harmison, 3*Sawy., 556; *Memphis v. Brown,*94 U. S., 715; *Ex parte Sawyer,*21 Wall., 235; *Burnside v. Ennis,*43 Ind., 411; *Regina v. Fitzgerald,*1 Salk., 401; *Rex v. Price,*6 East, 323; *Rex v. Leicestershire Justices,*1 Maule & S., 442. And if there were any doubts as to the existence of the power independent of statute, we think it is expressly conferred by section 178 of the Code, which is as follows: “The record aforesaid is under the control of the court, and may be amended, or any entry therein expugned, at any time during the term at which it is made, or before it is signed by the judge.” Aeeirmed.