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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Equidyne
Corporation  Form 10-QSB for the period ended  January 31, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jul-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jan-31-2000
<CASH>                                         893
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               65
<PP&E>                                         868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (186)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,967
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,484
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,980
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (33)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)




</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7167

JAMES E. HARRISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

C. T. NULTY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-575-AM)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James E. Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Harrison v. Nulty, No. CA-97-575-AM (E.D. Va. July 29,

1997). 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
Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
 TO
 THE MACERICH COMPANY
 2005 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 FOR EXECUTIVES

 

WHEREAS, The Macerich Company (the “Company”) has established and maintains The Macerich Company 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives (the “Plan”) to provide supplemental retirement income benefits through deferrals of salary and bonuses for certain Key Employees (as defined in the Plan); and

 

WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), and Section 9.4 of the Plan allows for the amendment or addition of Plan provisions relating to elections as to the time and manner of distributions so long as they comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code; and

 

WHEREAS, Treasury Regulations and Internal Revenue Service guidance under Section 409A of the Code promulgated since the adoption of the Plan allow for the acceleration of payments to persons other than Participants pursuant to certain domestic relations orders; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is appropriate and desirable to amend the Plan to permit payments pursuant to domestic relations orders in a manner that complies with such regulations and guidance.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective May 1, 2011.

 

ARTICLE I
 TITLE AND DEFINITIONS

 

1.               Section 1.2 of the Plan is amended by the addition of definitions of new defined terms “Alternate Payee” and “Domestic Relations Order,” which shall read as follows:

 

“Alternate Payee” shall mean a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of a Participant, who has the right to receive all or a portion of the Participant’s Accounts under this Plan pursuant to a Domestic Relations Order.

 

“Domestic Relations Order” shall mean a “domestic relations order” as such term is defined in Section 414(p)(1)(B) of the Code.

 











 

ARTICLE VI
 DISTRIBUTIONS

 

2.               Article VI of the Plan is amended by adding a new Section 6.5 thereto, to read as follows:

 

6.5                                 Domestic Relations Order.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 6.1(b) and 6.3 hereof, an Alternate Payee may receive payment of all or any portion of a Participant’s Accounts at such time and in such form (from among those set forth in Section 6.1 or in an immediate lump sum payment) as may be specified in or elected in accordance with a Domestic Relations Order.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officers to execute this amendment this 6th day of May, 2011.

 

	
 
    	
THE   MACERICH COMPANY
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By   
    	
/s/   Stephanie P. Corcoran
REF ID:A36356B 

Ilf '!'HE UNITED STATES PA.TENT OFFICE 

REt Application tor Pa.tent of 

WILLllll * F. F.RIEDMAR 

* Serial Number 

551,172 * 

J'iled * 

25 August 1944 

* Far 

AU'l'BENTICATDlG DEVICE * 

* * * * * * * * * * 

The Honorable Commissioner of Patents 

Washing"'..on 25, D. c. 

Sirs 

Division 23 

This is in response to Patent Office action of ll May 1949 in the 

above•:idontified application for patent. Please amend th~? case as 

tollows1 

. IN THE SPEOIFIOA'l'ION 

Page l, lino 2.3 - After "contacts" insert a comma. 

23 - Change "appear" to - appears - • 

Page 2, line 2l - Cancel the comma. 

Page 4, line 1 - After "1>7" insert - a. - • 

9 - After •'fltt insert a comma. 

12 - After "tno" insert ... wcmld - • 

13 - .ltter "13" insert - would .... 

l4 - Change. •indicates" to - indicate - • 

25 - After tttainingtr insert - a - • 

-1-

. ' 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-29-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

' ' .. ' ' 

i. 
REF ID:A36356B 

Pege 51 line 21 - Cancel the conm.. 

IH THE CL.UMS 

Claim 2, line 6 - Arter "series• itlsert - ~om among a predetermined 

number of contacts less than said plurality - • 

Clait! 3, line 7 - After "se~es" insert- - less than the af'orementioned 

plurality' - • 

Claim. 5, line 6 - Aftel' •series" insen ... the said number be1ng less 

than the said plurality - • 

The changes in the specitication are tor the purpose ot improving 

grammatical construction of' the text,. etc. 

Claims 2, .3, and 5 have been amended in accordance with the suggestion 

of paragraph 4 o~ the o:tticial action of 11llq'1949, and it is believed 

that they.now may be considered allowable. 

Please pass the case to isaue. 

RespectM),yWILLIAll F. FRIEDMAN, Applicant 

" 

·.'t .i 

/ 

! •
EXHIBIT
31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 I, John E. Porter, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Glen Burnie Bancorp;
 
 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 the Registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer 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 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)
    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 on such evaluation;
and
 
 (c)
    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 (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
 
 5.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer 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 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 control
      over financial reporting.
 
 ****Date: March 10,
2005
    By:
    /s/ John E.
  PorterJohn E. PorterChief Financial
      Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0407. THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v.

BALAMO. 

The Georgia Department of Transportation directly appealed a trial court order

denying its motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The Department now

moves to dismiss its appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Department notes

that it filed this appeal pursuant to Board of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (672

SE2d 471) (2009), which authorized such direct appeals of certain interlocutory

rulings under the collateral order doctrine. However, asthe Department further notes,

the Georgia Supreme Court recently overruled Canas, holding that the denial of a

motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is notsubject to a direct appeal under

the collateral order doctrine. Rivera v. Washington, ___ Ga. ___ (Case No.

S15G0887, decided March, 25, 2016). “Such a judicial determination presumptively

appliesretroactively to all casesin the ‘pipeline,’ unlike a change in the law resulting

fromconstitutional or statutory amendment. [Cits.]” Murphy v. Murphy, 295 Ga. 376,

379 (761 SE2d 53) (2014). Accordingly, the Department was required to follow the

interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to obtain appellate review of

the trial court’s order. Because the Department failed to follow the required appellate

procedure, its motion to dismissis granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction. See Kliesrath v. Estate of Davis, ___ Ga. ___ (Case No. S15G1206,

decided April 26, 2016). 

On remand, we remind the trial court that “courts should address motions on

immunity issues as early as practicable and, if there is any substantial question, permit

an interlocutory appeal to proceed.” Rivera, supra at ___. See also Turner v. Giles,

May 09, 2016
264 Ga. 812, 813-814 (1) (450 SE2d 421) (1994) (recommending that except in clear

cases, trial courts should issue a certificate of immediate review under OCGA § 5-6-

34 (b) for interlocutory orders denying dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/09/2016
REF ID:A10456B 

8UBJE01's tlb.ited States-United tbgdort Patent .Apaenta 

1. the l.at•8t toX"mal qreement iap.-c1tieaUY delineating the 

l'!chta aJ:Jd duties ot the: trnit.d Stat•• and BrU;ilth Oov•:rmuen'U 

to•le.Uvt to i-tenta ud 1nvent1oq was tht •<>-called Pa.tent i»terc~e J.greemont, now upu.d. 

a. !he llut\'141 Deteue A.tsaiatanco ~V ot 19'1 (Atlaat1o 

hot) contaizus a claua• obUcating the United S'tatea and the 

Vtd'\ed l':tngdOJa to n.agotiate a new agreeitettt an auch •tt.rs - and there 1a a 1-lief' curr.nt in the Pent-.eon that &19" nn underwtaldna wiU b9 Tfl'J:'J/ aiailar to the Patent Intercha12ge Agreement, wt no ntw ~-·nt bu ... 7et been executed. 

J. Dl tM •b•tnoe of a •1*'1fio tllll!eratand:tna, tt is the 

Tl•• qf '\be l~ lAG a.nd th• tegal DirlS10Jl ot the S1gna1 Corpe 

tbe.t the ~entional liQenee obtd.•d bJ' the Gavtf1"mllnt tro• ita 

own .-plo1M• u •U u :troa contractor•• which lloense psrmit• 1MU1utao~tlZ'e -'1d use tor &UftM!njfal J2S'lf0St1, Juattriea th• eon• 

ft1ailee of' teclln1cal Wo:naat1on as wll u *tu1Ja.1lt• 1rivolviiJI 

1.l!Yent1one ~ lq' United States patents or 1J1,tent •PP11oatione. 

!he 't'iew ot the groups mentioned 10, 1n othtr word.a, th&t 

~nW m is rlrtuall,y s~us with e;overJlllelltal 

~wtw. 

4. A• hr u bl bQ1ln 1n the Ot'flce o! the a<l• notwitbltand~ 

~ ud w.ried 1h1paen1is o£ equipnent to for•ign couutrias durina 

.nd to1i.mr1rig W.-1d. Wu II, no cases haft N"itsen 1n the courts which 

eould 1'tl•ult 1n a jud1o1al dete~'l;ion tJ! the indicated interpre• ta..ti<m ~ tho exprearaion GDtmunto.l !ID• 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-16-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
l s.r.s. 

R&D 

c 0 p y 

REF 

PATENT APPLICATION S. N. 107,.244 

1. Is it desired to continue to maintain 

Friedman patent application s. N. 107,244 

relating to "Cryptographs" in secrecy? 

R&D *10 

(3-27-41) 

Yes, should be continued in Secret classification 

HGH 

SIS 3/31/41 

"' ; ~ 

eclassified and a roved for release b NSA on 11-22-2013 ursuant to E.O. 1352
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WAYNE ALAN PARTIN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30308

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00008-DLC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 5, 2016** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

For the third time, Wayne Alan Partin seeks to challenge imposition of

Sentencing Guidelines enhancements to his conviction for access with intent to

view child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Partin

FILED

NOV 18 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 *This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 **The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
contends United States v. Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006), prevents

imposition of these enhancements. Because this issue has already been addressed

by a previous panel, the law of the case prevents us from considering the question

anew. See United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997).

Partin’s argument that the previous panel’s decision should be afforded little

deference under United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986), is

unpersuasive. Unlike the motions panel in Houser, the previous merits panel

provided more than sufficient explanation of its decision. See United States v.

Partin, 565 F. App’x 626, 626-27 (9th Cir. 2014). That Partin chose not to seek en

banc review or file a certiorari petition is of no consequence. Nothing prevented

him from doing so. He chose to take his chances on remand. Lack of success there

does not mandate review here.

Partin does not convince us that any of the circumstances meriting

reconsideration of a previously resolved question are present. See Thomas v. Bible,

983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993). We therefore decline to do so.

AFFIRMED.

2
... 

REF ID:A67694 -

...J. 

JY· 

SlGN_\.t m'!l'ELLlGENOE 

dECT.ION 

((.._"'-·er t' ~ CGJ.AJ... ~...G:. 

~,ve>···· ~ R~ 

C»r-r .. ~ ~ ~ N '!. ~c.. I TC. S' 

l $lSl>E -~~) 

l),'~, f A.Ir· N,. -.., 161o,' 01 

!Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-06-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§ 

SECR"E'i 

L 

' I 

' 

~1 

... 

I 

I 

~ 

c' 

' ' 

r""'o 

Vo 

~ 

~ 

tr """' 

['JH 

[/.I 

~ 

~~ CD ~ o- ct- to 

'1 

..... I 

~g' 

~~ 

~p. 0 N 

'1 ..... ct- ts 

CD aq 

'1 ~ 

CD 

_...., < 

rn o 

HCD
•,: -- - . -- ~-... ..,. -- -""-::'·~ - ... --- . -:. ... - -':."' ... ":" .. -:-;~~:.•.'!.*" .. •,_•\,I}.$? - _. ,.. .. I •,O ~ ••.P...-:'"!". 

+-e REF ID:A67045 

3 

CROSS REFERENCE SHEET 

MAIN SUBJECT: 

Bequea~ One-!inle ~ape• 

-... , .. _ ... _. - CLASSIFICATION NUMBER: 

87atem-ftequlrem•n'• 

- '· 

To:4SA Date of Communication: 3 Jul 4'1 

Fromstate DQ1t Date of Basic Document: 3 Jul 4ll 

BRIEF SUMMARY: 

lleq,ueat that One f11ae !apes be product& tor the State Dept. 

Classifier: Jira B•J"k• 

Typist: llra le7ke 

CROSS REFERENCE NUMBERS: 

FILE: Dept.-ltate 

WDGAS form No, 1493 7 October 1946 44052 

Routed to: f'1le 

Date of Classifying:].8 Jul 4.'r 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 04-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

- ,,. ~ - ..... 11 "4 .. ,. •• .,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7815

CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC; LINDA SHIELDS, F.S. Dir. 

VDOC; CARL MARROW, Reg. F.S. Dir. VDOC; JEFFREY DILLMAN, 

Warden Powhatan Corr. Ctr.; L. HUNT, Food Service Director, 

P.C.C.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:13-cv-00049-HEH)

Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Roulhac, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

action for failure to state a claim. While Roulhac’s informal 

appellate brief raises myriad challenges to the conditions of 

his confinement, we conclude only his Eighth Amendment claims 

related to the quality of the food and water served at Powhatan 

Correctional Center (“PCC”) were fairly presented in the

complaint and thus properly raised in the district court. See

Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm., Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630-31 (4th 

Cir. 2008) (finding no abuse of discretion in “declining to 

grant a motion [to amend] that was never properly made”); see 

also In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(recognizing court will not consider issues raised for first 

time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances). Additionally, 

Roulhac has forfeited appellate review of his challenge to PCC’s 

water quality by failing to address this issue in his informal 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to 

issues raised in informal brief). 

As for the dismissal of Roulhac’s claim related to the 

quality of the food served at PCC, we have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. We affirm as to this issue for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Roulhac v. Clarke, 

No. 3:13-cv-00049-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2014). Additionally, 
3

we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of 

Roulhac’s motions for appointment of counsel. See Miller v. 

Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review); 

Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (addressing 

circumstances requiring appointment of counsel in civil cases), 

abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296 (1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32(a)

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the Quarterly Report of Thermodynetics,  Inc. (the "COMPANY")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ending  June  30,  2003,  as  filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned,  the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),  hereby certifies to the best
of the undersigned's  knowledge and belief,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1) The Report  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in all material respects; and

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

         Date: August 10, 2006       BY:  /s/ ROBERT A. LERMAN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Robert A. Lerman
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise  subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934,  except to the  extent  that the  small  business  issuer  specifically
incorporates it by reference.