alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      TRIBUTE TO GENERAL JIM SHANE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise to salute the service of a 
distinguished Kentuckian. This gentleman recently ended a long career 
devoted to the service of his country and our commonwealth.
  His name is Jim Shane, and I am proud to say Jim is a friend of mine. 
Jim recently stepped down as executive director of the Kentucky 
Commission on Military Affairs, a post he held since 1997. During his 
tenure, Jim can point to many accomplishments, but he was particularly 
instrumental in preparing Kentucky for the rigors of the 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure--BRAC--process. The commonwealth, in particular 
Fort Knox, was a big winner in the BRAC process, and no one was more 
instrumental in this success than Jim.
  Jim had a vision for Fort Knox, one in which the installation would 
again be a home to combat troops and to a number of major Army 
commands. He then worked tirelessly with Federal and State officials, 
the BRAC Commission and the Department of Defense to make that 
conception of Fort Knox a reality. The result was that Fort Knox 
emerged revitalized from the BRAC process. Consequently, central 
Kentucky stands to gain immeasurably from the economic benefits 
stemming from the installation's enhancement, and our armed forces will 
be the better for Fort Knox's improved stature.
  Prior to his service for Kentucky, Jim served his country with great 
distinction. He spent 27 years of commissioned service in the Army, 
rising to the rank of brigadier general. His career highlights include 
service as Deputy Commanding General, United States Recruiting Command, 
in which he was responsible for manning the Army's all-volunteer force.
  Jim also received numerous medals, awards and decorations for his 
efforts in the Army including the Distinguished Service Medal, the 
Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star 
Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the 
Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army 
Achievement Medal, the Parachutist Badge, the Ranger Tab, and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff Identification badge.
  I am proud to say that Jim is also a fellow alumnus of the University 
of Louisville.
  Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring this fine 
Kentucky patriot for his long and notable career of public service.

                          ____________________
```
#### Tipler Lumber Company, Appellant, vs. Wisconsin Tax Commission, Respondent.

*February 5*

March *4, 1930.*

*158For the appellant there was a brief by *North, Parker, Bie, Duquaine, Welsh & Trowbridge*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *J. R. North*and *F. N. Trowbridge.*

For the respondent there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Theo. W. Braseau*of Wisconsin Rapids, special counsel for the Tax Commission, and oral argument by *Mr.*« *Braseau.*

Stevens, J.

The case presents the same questions that are considered and determined in *Waldheim & Co. Inc. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., ante,*p. 151, 229 N. W. 641, decided herewith.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     10-K 1997 Financials
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0000004187
<NAME>                       Industrial Services of America, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                          495834
<SECURITIES>                    40154
<RECEIVABLES>                   5262373
<ALLOWANCES>                    (16000)
<INVENTORY>                     2511826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                8490180
<PP&E>                          3642712
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3893024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           8985730
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        19575000
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    13893024
<SALES>                         1633756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                45211593
<CGS>                           41330538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   45075524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              78810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 222426
<INCOME-TAX>                    85290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    137136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .07



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                       CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER

                                       OF

                                TWI VENTURES LTD.
                            (A DELAWARE CORPORATION)

                                      INTO

                           WARNER COMMUNICATIONS INC.
                            (A DELAWARE CORPORATION)

It is hereby certified that:

         1. Warner Communications Inc. [hereinafter sometimes referred to as the
"Corporation"] is a business corporation of the State of Delaware.

         2. The Corporation is the owner of all of the outstanding shares of the
stock of TWI Ventures Ltd., which is also a business corporation of the State of
Delaware.

         3. On December 2, 1999, the Board of Directors of the Corporation
adopted the following resolutions to merge TWI Ventures Ltd. into the
Corporation:

                  RESOLVED that TWI Ventures Ltd. be merged into this
                  Corporation, and that all of the estate, property, rights,
                  privileges, powers and franchises of TWI Ventures Ltd. be
                  vested in and held and enjoyed by this Corporation as fully
                  and entirely and without change or diminution as the same were
                  before held and enjoyed by TWI Ventures Ltd. in its name.

                  RESOLVED that this Corporation shall assume all of the
                  obligations of TWI Ventures Ltd.

                  RESOLVED that this Corporation shall cause to be executed and
                  filed and/or recorded the documents prescribed by the laws of
                  the State of Delaware and by the laws of any other appropriate
                  jurisdiction and will cause to be performed all necessary acts
                  within the State of Delaware and within any other appropriate
                  jurisdiction.



<PAGE>



                  RESOLVED that the effective time of the Certificate of
                  Ownership and Merger setting forth a copy of these
                  resolutions, and the time when the merger therein provided for
                  shall become effective, is at 9:02 A.M. on December 31, 1999.

         4. The Corporation shall be the surviving corporation in the Merger.

         5. It is intended that implementation of the merger be in conformity
with the requirements of Section 368(a)(1)(A) and 332 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.



Executed on December 9, 1999.

                                                  WARNER COMMUNICATIONS INC.

                                                  By:/s/Spencer B. Hays
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Spencer B. Hays
                                                     Vice President

Attest:

/s/Marie N. White
-----------------
Marie N. White
Assistant Secretary
**EXHIBIT 10.12**

**Summary of Compensation Policy for Directors of Analogic Corporation**

The Chairman of the Board isentitled to receive a monthly fee of $5,000. Each director of the Company who is not an employee of the Company is entitled to an annual fee of $15,000. In addition, each director of the Company who is not an employee of the Company is entitled to afee of $1,500 per meeting for each meeting of the Company’s Board of Directors (the Board) or any Board committee attended in person, or a fee of $1,000 per meeting for each meeting of the Board or any Board committee attended by telephone,together with reimbursement of travel expenses under certain circumstances. In addition, each director who serves as a chairman of a Board committee and is not an employee of the Company is entitled to an annual fee of $3,000. 

Pursuant to the 1997 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended December 8, 2003 and September 20, 2006 (the 1997Plan), options to purchase 150,000 shares of Common Stock may be granted only to directors of the Company or any subsidiary who are not employees of the Company or any subsidiary. The exercise price of options granted under the 1997 Plan is the fairmarket value of the Common Stock on the date of grant. The 1997 Plan provides that each new non-employee director who is elected to the Board shall be granted an option to acquire 5,000 shares, effective as of the date he or she is first elected tothe Board. 

Every four (4) years from the date on which a non-employee director was last granted a non-employee director option, thatnon-employee director shall be granted an option to acquire 5,000 shares, effective as of the date of that fourth anniversary. 

Optionsgranted under the 1997 Plan become exercisable in three equal annual installments on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, and expire ten (10) years after the date of grant. 

The 1997 Plan is administered by members of the Company’s Board of Directors.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,252-01

IN RE ROBERT DION WILLIAMS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1099166-A IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: June 03, 2015

Do not publish
Exhibit 99.4
                             Selected Information
                      Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2001-B
                   March 31, 2001 through December 31, 2001
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Class A-3        Class A-4        Class A-5        Class B
           Floating Rate    5.12%            5.36%            5.71%
           Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed
           Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------


<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>

Principal
Paid       $519,878,118.36  $0.00            $0.00             $1,368,100,000.00

Interest
Paid       $ 39,902,127.10  $ 45,838,222.19  $ 19,873,595.51  $  6,357,978.70

---------------
Total Servicing Fees Paid:  $ 28,801,745.58


</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NATIONWIDE SALES AND SERVICES INC., IMIG, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

STEEL CITY VACUUM COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2018-2116

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York in No. 2:16-cv-06223-DRHGRB, Judge Denis R. Hurley.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

WILLIAM DUNNEGAN, Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC, New 

York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by LAURA SCILEPPI; GERARD F. DUNNE, Law Office 

of Gerard F. Dunne, P.C., New York, NY. 

 GERARD M. DONOVAN, Reed Smith LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

KIRSTEN RYDSTROM, Pittsburgh, PA. 

 ______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 June 20, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Overton Argued at Salem, Virginia

MARK SHAWN WALLACE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0795-96-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON FEBRUARY 25, 1997 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge Sharon K. Eimer, Senior Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Mark Shawn Wallace was convicted by a jury of malicious wounding and the use of a firearm in the commission of malicious wounding. He appeals, contending (1) that the evidence does not prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) that the trial court erred by barring the defendant’s evidence of mitigating circumstances at the sentencing phase. We affirm as to the first issue but remand for resentencing as to the second. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light most

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 favorable to the Commonwealth. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). A judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See Traverso v. Commonwealth , 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988). “Whether malice existed is a question for the jury.” Branch v. Commonwealth , 14 Va. App. 836, 841, 419 S.E.2d 422, 426 (1992); Essex v. Commonwealth , 228 Va. 273, 280, 322 S.E.2d 216, 220 (1984). The defendant’s conduct and words at the time of the incident and thereafter may be used to show malice. See Slusher v. Commonwealth , 196 Va. 440, 445, 83 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1954). The record contains ample evidence for the jury to conclude that Wallace acted with malice. Wallace shot the victim at a distance of five to six feet. He said, “Let’s go,” immediately afterwards. He rendered no assistance to the bleeding victim lying next to him for several minutes after the shooting. He wiped off the gun and disposed of it. When questioned, Wallace denied seeing or hearing anything. This evidence clearly supports the jury’s conclusion that Wallace maliciously wounded the victim. Wallace also argues that he should have been allowed to present evidence of mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase, even though the Commonwealth presented no evidence of a criminal record. We agree, based on our decision in Pierce v.

Commonwealth , 21 Va. App. 581, 466 S.E.2d 130 (1996). We3 therefore remand for a new sentencing proceeding to be conducted under the revised Code § 19.2-295.1, in which the defendant may introduce evidence relevant to punishment regardless of whether the Commonwealth presents evidence of a criminal record. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and remand for resentencing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 27,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Ludger Viefhues, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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

|Date: May 6, 2005 |  | /s/LUDGER VIEFHUESLudger Viefhues Chief Financial Officer
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks