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 BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      33,734,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,545,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,300,000
<PP&E>                                       5,509,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,373,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,519,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,178,000
<BONDS>                                      1,156,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,500,000
<COMMON>                                        42,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,929,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,519,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,099,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,223,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             207,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (31,919,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (31,919,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (31,919,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.76)
<FN>
<F1> ADDITIONAL PAID-IN-CAPITAL--$271,844,000
     ACCUMULATED DEFICIT--$(263,915,000)
     FAS 115 SECURITIES ADJUSTMENT--$0
</FN>


</TABLE>
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

MICHAEL F. MOORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 27, 2020

v No. 349505

Antrim Circuit Court
KATHLEEN R. GLYNN, LC No. 13

- 006629

- DO

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: S HAPIRO

, P .J., and S ERVITTO and L ETICA , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, P .J. ( concurring ).

Like the majority, in whose opinion I join, I conclude that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority.

The text of the relevant provision is unambiguously ambiguous. Its meaning is not apparent in the words themselves and each party has offered a reasonable interpretation. Moore

a sserts that he agreed to pay four percent of all the designated monies he is paid for a period of

five years with no further payments to be made after the five

- year period. In return, he submits, Glynn agreed to give up all interests in the joint businesses and Moore ’s businesses . By contrast, Glynn interprets the provision to mean that for her entire li fetime she is to receive four percent of all amounts (e.g.

, future royalties ) paid to Moore for the work performed during their marriage and

for the five

- year period thereafter. 1 These understandings of the provision are so far afield from

each other that if both parties are arguing in good faith it is difficult to understand why they believed there was an agreement at all.

Nevertheless, the question is whether the agreement authorized the arbitrator to do what

she did

, and I agree with the majority tha t she acted within her authority.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

1 Since the value of other property described in the settlement agreement is not in the record, we

also cannot review the equity of the property division.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 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>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         172,626
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         178,508
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               475,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    973,051
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      2,599,773
<ALLOWANCE>                                     60,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,716,755
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,786,188
<SHORT-TERM>                                   280,701
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             46,031
<LONG-TERM>                                    191,525
<COMMON>                                        78,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     330,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,716,755
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                150,757
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               48,900
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                19,464
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               219,121
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              82,248
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,164
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          113,957
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               7,166
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                130,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,466
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      55,466
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.71
<LOANS-NON>                                     13,150
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,664
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   296
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,267
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                56,546
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,126
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,153
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               60,689
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            47,760
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             12,929
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        





</TABLE>
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

I, Alan C. Bashforth, the Chief Executive Officer of Science Dynamics
Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal
    quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: August 12, 2002



                                    /s/ Alan C. Bashforth
                                    ---------------------
                                    Name: Alan C. Bashforth
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer
n i T ^ O '-i.-Iv^ OPERATIONS' 

'/Ml m 31 A !!: 3q 

September 1,2010 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis, X86-310 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Support of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport's Application for Funding Under the 

Department of Transportation Smatf Community Air Service Development Program 

Dear Aloha, 

United Airlines, and its regional partners operating as United Express, have recently met with 

leaders from the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to discuss the potential for new non-stop service to 

our hub at San Francisco. As you know, we previously partnered with Idaho Falls and the 

Department of Transportation on a Small Community Air Service Development Grant proposal 

that launched United service between Idaho Falls and Denver. 

The previous Grant project was a strong example of how the SCASDG Program can work to help 

launch service that would otherwise be deemed too "risky" by an airline and its planners. At no 

point did we ever draw upon the revenue guarantee portion of the Grant, but the marketing 

support was invaluable. 

We support the Idaho Falls Regional Airport in its request for a new Grant, for additional 

westbound service. While we cannot commit to serving the Idaho Falls - San Francisco route, 

even if it wins a Grant, the Idaho Falls - San Francisco route is one that we are giving strong 

consideration. 

Best regards. 

GregKaldahl 

Vice President Planning
Administrative Office: 2700 “M” Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 Phone (661) 862-5250 – Fax (661) 862-5251

www.kernair.org – ekapcd@co.kern.ca.us 

### Glen E. Stephens, P.E.

Air Pollution Control Officer 

# astern Kern

Air Pollution Control District 

# E

April 21, 2014

Mr. Patrick Au
Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division
P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95815

SUBJECT: Draft Rule 432, Polyester Resin Operations

Dear Mr. Au:

Enclosed is the Rule Action Package for Draft Rule 432, Polyester Resin Operations adopted by the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (District) Board of Dir ectors on March 13, 2014. Rule 432 became effective upon Board Adoption. The package is being sent electronically to pau@arb.ca.gov . The District requests that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) forward all appr opriate documentation to U.S. EPA Region IX office as
a revision to the District’s SIP.

The District also requests that ARB update their District Rule database of Rules and Regulations located on the
ARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ker/cur.htm to include Rule 432 once it has been approved by EPA.

Included in the Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 1) Complete Clean Copy of the Rule 2) Strikeout Underline Copy of the Rule 3) Certified Governing Board Resolution 4) Certified Notice of Exemption to the Clerk 5) Evidence of Public Hearing 6) Public Comments and Responses (included in Final Staff Report) 7) Other Materials (Final Staff Report, Certified Board Summary, and Copy of Referenced Rules)

Rule 410.4, Metal, Plastic, and Pleasure Craft Parts a nd Products Coating Operati ons and Rule 410.4A, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations were also amended on March 13, 2014 and Draft Rules 410.8, Aerospace Assembly and Coating Operations and 410 .9, Wood Products Surface Coating Operations were adopted and are being submitted as sepa rate packages. Should you have an y questions, please contact Jeremiah Cravens AQS II Cravensj@co.kern.ca.us or (661) 862-5250.



### Sincerely,

Glen E. Stephens, P.E.
Air Pollution Control Officer

GES:JC
Exhibit 31.2

                 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

     I, Mark E. Wilson, Chief Financial Officer of J Net Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), certify that:

     (1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
Registrant;

     (2)  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

     (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     (4)  The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant
and we have:

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

          (b)  [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition
                instructions]

          (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based upon based such evaluation; and

          (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control
over financial reporting;

     (5)  The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably 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
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.

Dated:  May 14, 2004                 By: /s/ Mark E. Wilson
                                     _______________________
                                     Mark E. Wilson
                                     Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.6 Amendment to the Time Warner Inc.






Exhibit 10.6




AMENDMENT TO THE

TIME WARNER INC. 2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




     1. This Amendment to the Time Warner Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) shall become
effective on October 1, 2008 (the “Effective Date”).



     2. The terms “Fair Market Value,” “fair market value” and “Market Value,” as applicable, and
their respective definitions, as may be set forth in the Plan shall be amended by replacing any
such terms with “Fair Market Value” and replacing their respective definitions with the following:




“Fair Market Value” means, on a given date, (i) if there should be a public market
for the shares of Common Stock on such date, the closing sale price of the shares of
Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape, or, if the shares of
Common Stock are not listed or admitted on any national securities exchange, the
average of the per share closing bid price and per share closing asked price on such
date as quoted on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation
System (or such market in which such prices are regularly quoted) (the “NASDAQ”),
or, if no sale of shares of Common Stock shall have been reported on the New York
Stock Exchange Composite Tape or quoted on the NASDAQ on such date, then the
immediately preceding date on which sales of the shares of Common Stock have been so
reported or quoted shall be used, and (ii) if there should not be a public market
for the shares of Common Stock on such date, the Fair Market Value shall be the
value established by the Board of Directors or authorized Board committee in good
faith.



     3. This Amendment shall apply with respect to the administration of awards under the Plan for
any and all awards granted under the Plan that are outstanding on or after the Effective Date,
provided however, that this Amendment shall not amend or affect the exercise price of any stock
options granted under the Plan prior to October 1, 2008.



Date: September 10, 2008




 

TIME WARNER INC.




	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Harry L. Spencer

	 	 	 

	 	 	Harry L. Spencer

	 	 	Vice President, Global Benefits & HR Operations
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

 MORGAN T. ZURN

 MASTER IN CHANCERY LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER

 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400

 WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3734 

June 21, 2017

George X 

301 Bayard Street

P.O. Box 46

Delaware City, DE 19706

Larry R. Wood, Esquire

Adam V. Orlacchio, Esquire

Blank Rome LLP

1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: George X v. Charles E. Brittingham, et al.

C.A. No. 12187-MZ

Dear Counsel and Litigant:

Pending before me is defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended 

complaint for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April

11, 2016, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. I granted his 

application, but dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his 

amended complaint on April 22, 2016, and served some, but not all, of the 

defendants. On May 19, 2016, the served defendants’ deadline to respond to the 

amended complaint, the defendants requested an extension of time to “the later of 

(i) twenty (20) days after the date on which evidence is filed with the Court 
C.A. No. 12187-MZ

June 21, 2017

Page 2

reflecting completion of service of the Complaint and summonses upon all of the 

defendants, and (ii) June 20, 2016.” Plaintiff did not oppose the defendants’ 

request. I granted this extension. 

After a period of inactivity, on May 2, 2017, I requested a status update by 

May 15, 2017, and indicated the case might be subject to dismissal under Court of 

Chancery Rule 41(e). Plaintiff did not respond. On May 19, 2017, defendants 

moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, asserting plaintiff has not made any 

further attempt to serve the remaining defendants and did not submit a status 

report. Plaintiff did not file any opposition. 

Court of Chancery Rule 41(e) states:

(e) Inaction for 1 Year; Dismissal. Subject to the 

provisions of Rules 23, 23.1 and 23.2 in each cause 

pending wherein no action has been taken for a period of 

1 year, the Court may upon application of any party, or 

on its own motion, and after reasonable notice, enter an 

order dismissing such cause unless good reason for the 

inaction is given, or the parties have stipulated with the 

approval of the Court as to such matter.

“It is settled law that the trial court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to 

prosecute.” “Litigants, whether represented by counsel or appearing pro se, must 

diligently prepare their cases for trial or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.” 

There has been no activity for a period of one year. The plaintiff has provided no 

good reason for his inaction: he has been completely silent since serving some of 
C.A. No. 12187-MZ

June 21, 2017

Page 3

the defendants, even after the Court indicated the matter may be ripe for dismissal 

and the defendants moved for dismissal.

I recommend the Court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. This is a 

final report pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 144.

Sincerely,

/s/ Morgan T. Zurn

Master in Chancery
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         673,725
<SECURITIES>                                    22,063
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,539,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,357,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,972,354
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,086
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,888,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,357,841
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,041,621
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  496,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             346,399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                234,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                    99,466
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            134,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   134,795
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00285-CR

Jason Clay DOTSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR10439

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The record in this appeal is complete except for a seventy-page volume of the reporter’s 

record. On August 20, 2014, the reporter, Herminia Torres, filed a notification of late record, 

stating she has not filed the volume because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay 

the reporter’s fee to prepare the record and appellant is not entitled to the record without paying 

the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b), 35.3(b). 

We therefore order appellant to provide written proof to this court by September 2, 

2014 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the reporter 

have been made to pay the reporter’s fee or (2) appellant is entitled to the record without 

prepayment of the reporter’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). If appellant fails to respond within 

the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due September 22, 2014, and the court will only 

consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court