alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

Auditors' Report


We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Corel Corporation as at
November 30, 1997 and the consolidated statements of operations and retained
earnings (deficit) and changes in financial position for the years ended
November 30, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain
reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the Company as at November 30,
1997, the results of operations and the changes in its financial position for
the years ended November 30, 1997 and 1996 in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.

Generally accepted accounting principles in Canada differ in some respects from
those applicable in the United States. (note 10).

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants


Ottawa, Canada
January 16, 1998
(except as to Note 12 which
is at February 23, 1998)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         179,157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,714,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                   340,315
<INVENTORY>                                  6,074,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,050,874
<PP&E>                                       1,790,120
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,146,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,944,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,591,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           469
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,704,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,944,742
<SALES>                                     15,936,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,936,681
<CGS>                                       11,864,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,320,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               256,557
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,419,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,352,967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,352,967)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,352,967)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.66)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
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 December 1, 2010 

# Order

December 1, 2010

139769 & (60)

DAN-KAI TUS and NU CHEN YEN TUS, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/ Appellants, SC: 139769 v COA: 281007 Washtenaw CC: 06-000910-CH SHIRLEY HURT f/k/ a SHIRLEY ROBBINS, Defendant-Cross Defendant,

and

STERLING MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT COMPANY, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Cross Plaintiff/Appellee,

and

AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF WASHTENAW and RE PUBLIC BANC MORTGAGE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants.

_____________ _______________ _____________

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipula tion by counsel agreeing to the dismissal of the appeal is considered and the appeal is dismissed with prejudic e and without costs.
• REF ID:A719·~··~ 

WAR DEPARTMENT l{j) :J"o..R.J '-i- r COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION COMMITTEE 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

24 January 19/1-5 

MEMCRANDill.f FCR MR. WILLIAM F. FRIEIJ4AN, DIRECTOR ClF C~'IMUNIOATIONS 

:RESEARCH, SIGNAL SECURITY AGENCY, WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

Subject: General Address and Signature Code No. 2. 

Reference: Memo, Friedman to Beckley, (SPSIS-J), 18Jan45. 

1. Herewith is returned the copy of General Address ani. 

Signature' Code No. 2 in use in 1925 in the War Deplrtment and cor1s 

area radio nets. I 

, 

2. The Communications Coordination Conllllittee is studying 

the question or addressing and drafting of messages based on a di,-ective from the Chief' Signal Officer. It is probable that tr..e CCC llill 

divide the study into two independent studies, namely, (lat) addr,,ss 

and signature and (2nd) drafting of messages. I 

I 

, J. I expect reassignment before this CCC study has been 

concluded. However, it has been recommended that the CCC conduct a 

discussion with you and your Agency tCJl'fards eliminating differences 

and misunderstandings now existing. Appreciate the loan -o:t yaur , 

copy. 

1 Incl: 

Gd. Ad. and Sig. Code No. 2 

S • A. Beckley, 7 

Colonel, G.S.C., 

AGF Representative. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-23-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10995 Summary Calendar

ALAN GERARD OUELLETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JIM BOWLES ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-1283-X

- - - - - - - - - - March 11, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Alan Gerard Ouellette, Dallas County prisoner #97004554, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint and revocation of his in forma pauperis (IFP) status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Ouellette moves for appointment of counsel and summary judgment; his motions are DENIED. Ouellette contends that an untreated hernia has caused him serious physical injury; that his hernia likely will cause him permanent and debilitating damage in the future; that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; and that the denial of his medical needs violated the Equal Protection Clause becauseanother prisoner received adequate medical care.

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought and action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Ouellette made no allegations regarding any danger of a serious physical injury in his appellate IFP motion, the district court’s grant of leave to proceed IFP on appeal could have been based only on the allegations Ouellette made in his responses to a questionnaire from the magistrate judge. The grant of IFP on appeal constituted an implicit finding that Ouellette was under an imminent danger of serious physical injury, contradicting the district court’s explicit finding that Ouellette was not under such an imminent danger with regard to his district court proceedings. We vacate the order granting Ouellette leave to proceed IFP on appeal and remand Ouellette’s case for the district court to address the inconsistencies in its rulings. See Choyce v. Dominguez , 160 F.3d 1068, 1071 (5th Cir. 1998). We express no opinion on whether Ouellette in fact was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his notice of appeal or his motion to proceed IFP on appeal, see Baños v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998), or whether the type of injury Ouellette alleges is the type contemplated by § 1915(g). VACATED and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000353191
<NAME> NORTH VALLEY BANCORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,946
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,694
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                24,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     24,646
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          38,208
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            41,079
<LOANS>                                        168,029
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,672
<DEPOSITS>                                     249,067
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,414
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,161
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 282,672
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,815
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,197
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,012
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,137
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,137
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,875
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 192
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,498
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,498
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.44
<LOANS-NON>                                        757
<LOANS-PAST>                                       267
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       46
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,839
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0 
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           416
<OTHER-SE>                                        (416)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,053)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,053)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.001)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD ROTH, JR.,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ No. 502, 2017

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ 

§ Cr. ID 9901000330 (N)

§

§

Submitted: March 1, 2018

 Decided: April 26, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 

to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment below 

should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated

October 27, 2017. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Roth’s third 

motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that Roth had failed to 

overcome the procedural hurdles by pleading with particularity either that: (i) new 

evidence exists creating a strong inference that he is actually innocent; or (ii) a new, 

retroactively applicable rule of constitutional law renders his conviction invalid.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05884]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday March 17, 2015 at 10 a.m. and its continuation on 
Thursday March 19, 2015 at the conclusion of the open meeting.

PLACE 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer. 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-05884 Filed 3-11-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
a6817190ex10_2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT TO


 


METROPOLITAN HEALTH NETWORKS, INC.


 


OMNIBUS EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN


 


This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Metropolitan Health Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan, originally approved by the Company’s shareholders on June 23, 2005, is hereby made and is effective as of June 14, 2011, following the approval of the adoption of an amendment to the Plan (as defined below) by the shareholders of the Company.


 


RECITALS


 


A.   The Company’s Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan was (i) originally approved by the Company’s shareholders on June 23, 2005, (ii) subsequently amended, following the vote of the Company’s shareholders on June 26, 2008, to increase by 3,000,000 the number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Shares”) available for issuance thereunder, and (iii) amended and restated most recently following the vote of the Company’s shareholders on June 18, 2009 (such Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan, as amended and restated, is referred to herein as the “Plan”).


 


B.   At its meeting held on February 28, 2011, in light of the number of Shares then-available for issuance under the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company determined that, subject to shareholder approval, the maximum number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan should be increased by 3,000,000 shares, and submitted such determination to the Company’s shareholders for approval.


 


C.   On the date hereof, at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders of the Company, the shareholders voted in favor of approving the amendment to the Plan to increase the number of Shares reserved for issuance thereunder by 3,000,000, from 9,000,000 to 12,000,000.


 


D.   The Plan, in the definition of “Fair Market Value” refers to the NYSE Alternext US Exchange, which has subsequently changed its name to the “NYSE Amex Equities” Exchange.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:


 


1.   Section 2.20 of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing “NYSE Alternext US Exhange” with “NYSE Amex Equities Exchange (or any successor exchange thereto or name thereof)”.


 


2.   Section 3.6 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “9,000,000” and replacing such number with “12,000,000”.


 


[Signature page immediately follows]


 




  





  











  






 


This Amendment is hereby executed as of June 14, 2011.


 




	 	METROPOLITAN HEALTH NETWORKS, INC.
	 	 	 
	  	
 
By:



	  
	  	
 

	Authorized Officer










 


 



	
ATTEST:

	  
	
(Corporate Seal)

	  
	 	 
	
Secretary
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2016

NO. 03-16-00730-CV

Vincent Corson, Appellant

v.

Jankea Lashawn Wiggins, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 24, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
• Formed June 2011 – Denver Based 

• Founding Partners 

• Michael Kennedy, President – CEO 

• David Wheeler, Executive VP – Geoscience 

• Stephen Harpham – Executive VP – Engineering 

• EnCap Investments Private Equity Partner 

• Midcontinent (OK-KS-TX Panhandle) Area 

• Miss Lime Play Focused 

2 
3 Source: SandRidge August investor presentation. 

• 4 Focus Areas 

• 110M gross 74M net Acres 

• 11 HZ & 8 SWD wells 

• 2 rig program 2H2013 

• Elk 

• Chautauqua/Elk KS 

• ENE Extension 

• SEML, 

• Noble/Logan OK 

• East of Nemaha Ridge 

• Langdon 

• Reno KS 

• Northern Development Area 

• Stateline 

• Woods OK/Barber KS 

• Western Core 

Dorado 

Focus Areas 
Dorado 

Bush Hz 

Bush SWD 

4 

 NW Core Area 

 Dorado 

 4 Miss HZ, 3 SWD wells 

 ~15,500 Gross ~12,750 net acres 

 95% HBP

 Area of High Activity 

 Increased Density Drilling 

 4-5 wells per section 

 Infrastructure Concentration 

 SWD Gathering Systems 

 Centralized Disposal Facilities 

 Opportunities 

 3rd party disposal 

 Iodine recovery 

 Produced Water for Stimulation 

 Water Recycling 

Higher 

Density 

Development 

Widespread 

Higher Density 

Development 

Barber County KS 

Woods County OK 
 Northern Development Area 

 Dorado 

 5 Miss HZ, 4 SWD wells 

 ~46,250 Gross / ~30,700 net acres 

 1 rig in 2H2013

 Area of High Activity 

 Shell – 

▪ ~10 Hz/9 SWD wells drilled 

▪ Additional Locations permitted 

 Unit – 

▪ 7 Hz wells drilled / 4 wells WOPL 

▪ Type curve 125-180 MBOE (92% oil) 

40-70% ROR (Unit Website 2013) 

▪ Superior Pipeline installing new gathering 

system and NGL plant 

 Miss Lime Congress Challenge: 

Be open and honest with each 

other and share your specific 

experiences and results for the 

greater good Dorado 

Fesler 

Production 

Results 

Dorado 

Activity 

Area 

Shell area 

of activity 

Unit 

Overall 1-21H 

IP30: 323 BOPD 

Unit Area of 

Activity 

Shell area 

of activity 

5 
6 

IP(30) 281 MCFD 

IP(30) 1500 GOR 

IP(30) 2470 BWPD 

IP(30) 181 BOPD 

CWC $2.9MM 
• The Miss Lime presents numerous challenges: This 

Congress addresses Recovery Optimization 

• Day 1: Produced Water Management Costs 

• All encompassing analysis of produced water 

• Expert Speakers from a diverse group of companies active in 

the play 

• Day 2: Optimizing Production 

• Artificial Lift challenges and solutions 

• Maximizing Oil production and minimizing cost 

7 
• General Comments 

• Tight schedule we all need to adhere to 

• Be interactive with the speakers & ask questions 

• Be open and share with your colleagues 

• Visit with the Sponsors and Exhibitors 

• Part of the learning experience 

• Actively providing solutions to our challenges 

8
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM HUNGARIAN
TELEPHONE AND CABLE CORP.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000889949
<NAME>                        HUNGARIAN TELEPHONE AND CABLE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                        8,553
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 7,665
<ALLOWANCES>                  (962)
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              16,554
<PP&E>                        155,745
<DEPRECIATION>                (19,256)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                177,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         39,360
<BONDS>                       202,881
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      5
<OTHER-SE>                    (89,042)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  177,067
<SALES>                       38,707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              38,707
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 44,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            45,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (50,612)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (50,612)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (50,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (9.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        


</TABLE>