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

<PAGE>
<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>                                           6,773
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,143
<INVENTORY>                                    160,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,777
<PP&E>                                          83,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,241
<BONDS>                                         68,221
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           221
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,851
<SALES>                                        620,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               620,081
<CGS>                                          456,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,959
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (391)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,350
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        1,074
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,276
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No.'s 333-86358, 333-48492, 333-95311, 333-54562,
333-65428 & 333-73504) and Form S-8 (File No.'s 333-88928, 333-88930, 333-88932,
333-16299, 333-49939 & 333-49965) of Famous Dave's of America, Inc. of our
report dated January 30, 2002, which appears on page F-2 of this annual report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2003.


                                             /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 29, 2004
Petitions for Writ of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus Dismissed and

Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00902-CR

NO. 14-16-00903-CR

IN RE MCKINLEY BROOKS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

405th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-CR-0525

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 9, 2016, relator McKinley Brooks filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to order the Honorable 

Michelle Slaughter, presiding judge of the 405th District Court of Galveston 

County, to release relator on a personal bond or bail due to delay caused by the 
2

state’s motions to continue the trial and to require relator’s presence in court at all 

pretrial hearings. Relator also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asking this 

court to dismiss the case against relator due to the violation of his right to a speedy 

trial or to order DNA evidence excluded at trial.

Relator is requesting habeas corpus relief in both petitions. The courts of 

appeals have no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. In re 

Ayers, No. 14-16-00274-CR, — S.W.3d —, 2016 WL 1533747, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 14, 2016, orig. proceeding). Original jurisdiction 

to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (West 2015); Ayers, 2016 WL 1533747, at 

*1. Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to consider relator’s requests for 

habeas corpus relief.

Relator alternatively requests that we order the court to hold hearings on his 

pretrial writ of habeas and other pretrial motions. However, relator mentions that 

he is represented by counsel in the underlying case. A criminal defendant is not 

entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 

The issues relator raises in his pro se petition for writ of mandamus relate directly 

to a criminal proceeding in which he is represented by counsel. Therefore, in the 

absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator has presented nothing for this 

court’s consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498.
3

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition. We further deny relator’s 

motions to proceed in forma pauperis.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 12, 2015 (Volume 80, Number 48, Page 13008. The time and date should read as follows:                    

*Time and Date:*                         8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Panel 1; and 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m., Panel 2, April 1, 2015 (Closed).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hylan Shoob, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health (CGH) Science Office, CGH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-69, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone: (404) 639-4796.

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2015-06647 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
LCA ACQUISITION CORPORATION, 

d/b/a South Motors Infiniti

Appellant,

v.

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

and M10 MOTORS, INC., d/b/a 

Infiniti of Coral Gables 

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5159

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 17, 2016.

An appeal from Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Barry Richard and M. Hope Keating of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, John 

W. Forehand of South Motors Automotive Group, Miami, for Appellant.

Susan V. Warner of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP, Jacksonville,

and S. Keith Hutto and Christopher C. Genovese of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & 

Scarborough, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee Nissan North America, 

Inc. Richard N. Sox and Nicholas A. Bader of Bass, Sox, Mercer, Tallahassee, for

Appellee M10 Motors, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 10.1**

**Directors Plan Amendment**

UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC. 

AMENDMENT TO DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN 

Pursuant to Section 10 of the Unigene Laboratories, Inc. Directors Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby amends the Plan as set forth herein,effective as of June 25, 2009. 

1. Section 6(d) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

“Except as otherwise determined by the Board in its discretion at any time, any Option that has not theretofore expired shall terminate 90 daysfollowing the termination of the Participant’s service as a director of the Company for any reason, and no shares of Common Stock may thereafter be purchased pursuant to such Option, except that: 

(i) Upon the resignation of a Participant as a director due to disability, the Participant may, within a 180-day period after the date of suchtermination, purchase all or any part of the shares of Common Stock that such Participant was entitled to purchase under such Option on the date of such termination. 

(ii) Upon the death of a Participant while serving as a director or within the 90-day period referred to above, the Participant’s estate or the person to whom such Participant’s rights under the Option aretransferred by will or the laws of descent and distribution may, within a 180-day period after the date of such Participant’s death, purchase all or any part of the shares of Common Stock that such Participant was entitled to purchase undersuch Option on the date of death.” 

2. Except as specifically set forth and changed herein, the Plan is reaffirmed and remainsunchanged. 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed and its seal to beaffixed hereto by its officers hereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written. 

 

UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC.

By:
 
 

 
ATTEST:
 
Secretary
[SEAL]
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cathay Merchant
Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that:

| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
      the three month period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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: November 14, 2006 | By: | */s/ Michael J. Smith*                                    
|------------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     |                                                           
|                         |     | Michael J. Smith                                          
|                         |     | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
      and
|                         |     | Principal Accounting Officer                              

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Cathay Merchant
Group, Inc. and will be retained by Cathay Merchant Group, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
99-706.

#### State v. Waites.

Lake App. No. 97-L-244. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 99-286, *State v. Williams,*Lake App. No. 97-L-191; briefing schedule stayed.

Discretionary appeals in the following causes are allowed; *sua sponte,*the causes are consolidated with 99-706, *supra,*and held for the decision in 99-286, *State v. Williams,*Lake App. No. 97-L-191; briefing schedule stayed: 99-641, *State v. Abrams,*Lake App. No. 97-L-192; 99-642, *State v. Christison,*Lake App. No. 98-L-009; 99-643, *State v. Agler,*Lake App. No. 97-L-203; 99-644, *State v. Dairoch,*Lake App. No. 97-L-174; 99-645, *State v. Cowoski,*Lake App. No. 97-L-170; 99-646, *State v. Calhoun,*Lake App. No. 97-L-221; 99-647, *State v. Cwalina,*Lake App. No. 97-L-222; 99-648, *State v. Boswell,*Lake App. No. 98-L-008; 99-649, *State v. Burgan,*Lake App. No. 97-L-242; 99-655, *State v. Greene,*Lake App. No. 97-L-220; 99-656, *State v. Gau,*Lake App. No. 97-L-175; 99-657, *State v. Ferguson,*Lake App. No. 97-L-241; 99-658, *State v. King,*Lake App. No. 97-L-173; 99-659, *State v. DeCapite,*Lake App. No. 98-L-133; 99-660, *State v. Hammesfahr,*Lake App. No. 97-L-193; 99-661, *State v. King,*Lake App. No. 97-L-194; 99-662, *State v. Drake,*Lake App. No. 97-L-176; 99-664, *State v. Dietz,*Lake App. No. 97-L-204; 99-672, *State v. Noble,*Lake App. No. 97-L-240; 99-673, *State v. New,*Lake App. No. 97-L-178; 99-674, *State v. Laing,*Lake App. No. 97-L-172; 99-675, *State v. Malek,*Lake App. No. 98-L-010; 99-676, *State v. Pope,*Lake App. No. 97-L-182; 99-677, *State v. Pasko,*Lake App. No. 98-L-011; 99-678, *State v. McClintick,*Lake App. No. 97-L-171; 99-679, *State v. Neal,*Lake App. No. 97-L-179; 99-680, *State v. Lawrinson,*Lake App. No. 97-L-205; 99-689, *State v. Rivera,*Lake App. No. 97-L-181; 99-690, *State v. Bayless,*Lake App. No. 97-L-257; 99-691, *State v. Spatter,*Lake App. No. 97-L-183; 99-692, *State v. Armington,*Lake App. No. 98-L-193; 99-693, *State v. Ventresca,*Lake App. No. 97-L-243; 99-694, *State v. Setina,*Lake App. No. 97-L-239; 99-695, *State v. Hartman,*Lake App. No. 98-L-020; 99-696, *State v. Lett,*Lake App. No. 97-L-210; 99-698, *State v. Swansinger,*Lake App. No. 97-L-120; 99-699, *State v. Pearson,*Lake App. No. 98-L-179; 99-700, *State v. Otero,*Lake App. No. 97-L-310; 99-701, *State v. Crawford,*Lake App. No. 97-L-245; 99-702, *State v. Taylor,*Lake App. No. 97-L-185; 99-703, *State v. Vernon,*Lake App. No. 97-L-184; 99-704, *State v. Gaster,*Lake App. No. 97-L-281; 99-705, *State v. Semanak,*Lake App. No. 97-L-180; 99-707, *State v. Butcher,*Lake App. No. 97-L-030; 99-708, *State v. Will,*Lake App. No. 97-L-186; 99-709, *State v. Witlicki,*Lake App. No. 97-L-189; 99-710, *State v. Bayless,*Lake App. No. 97-L-256; 99-711, *State v. Wolfe,*Lake App. No. 97-L-188; 99-712, *State v. Woodruff,*Lake App. *1420No. 97-L-190; 99-716, *State v. McDonald,*Lake App. No. 97-L-305; and 99-730, *State v. Hill,*Lake App. No. 97-L-187.
,, - __ _,,..;;.., / 

1 

2 

c 

Plant Div. 

THRU ore, 

Operations 

Br. 

.M. Br. 

(Plant Div) 

0 

p 

~\ y 

Teletype Service. 

1. It is requested that teletype service 

(TWX) be procured for the following three (3) 

stations with equipment as listed: 

a. SIS Code room (Room 3339 Munitions 

BldgT to :onsist of 1 Page printer. , Hancoc.k 

b. Monitoring Station 1 Fort-MeB.meHE? 7 

New Jersey to consist of 1 Page Printer 

with facilities for tape perforation and 

transmission. 

c. Monitoring Station 2 Presidio of 

San Francisco, California to consist of 

1 Page printer with facilities for tape 

perforation and transmission. 

2. The three stations should not be listed 

in the TWX directqry. 

3. This service is necessary to expedite 

the transmission of material from Monitoring 

stations 1 and 2 to the SIS. A delay of as much 

as 3 days will be eliminated. The Navy has this 

service. Detailed operating instructions will 

be furnished Monitoring Stations 1 and 2 by the 

SIS. 

4. It is requested that these installations 

be expedited anq SIS be advised expected date of 

completion as scion as possible. 

5. 

monthly. 

Approximate total cost will be $300.00 

1. Approved. 

R.W.M. 

SIS 11-13-41 

/s/ O.K.S. 

O. Br. 

11-14-41 

Declassified and a roved for release b NSA on 11-08-2013 ur:suant to E. 0. 1352 
,.-.. 

3 s.r:s. 

REF ID:A487586 

~ft,Zj'iro\tT 

Orders for TWX service requested in Action 1 

have been placed with Telephone Company with • .... - .-. ., •. !" L. 

.·'-I .. 

request to expedite. As discussed with Lt. 

Col. Minckler by Maj. Topping: 

a. Installation for Mon. Sta. #1 will be 

made at Fort Hancock instead of Fort Monmouth. 

b. Unattended service has been specified, 

but may not be immediately available due to 

' 

shortage of equipm~nt. This, however, will not 

delay installation of service, and unattended 

feature will be added as soon as possible. 

c. Installations in Munitions Bldg. and at 

Fort Hancock will be made at once, and at 

San Francisco with a few days. Call numoers 

will be: 

s.r.s. Code room - Washington 153 

Fort Bancock - Highlands, N.J. 555 

San Francisco - San Francisco 279 

c 

0 

p 

y 

W.A.T. 

Plant 

11/19/41
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6278

CHRISTOPHER BROCKENBROUGH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00423-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Brockenbrough, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell

Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Brockenbrough seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

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

(2000). 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) (2000). 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 Brockenbrough

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 15, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00059-CV 

DONAL R. SCHMIDT, JR. AND THIMOTHY S. WAFFORD, Appellants 

V. 

P.I. HOLDINGS I, INC., AND COMPASS BANK, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02486 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated February 5, 2014, we informed 

appellants the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellants had not paid for the clerk’s 

record. We directed appellants to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the 

clerk’s record or to provide written documentation that they had been found entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed, and 

appellants have not provided the required documentation or otherwise corresponded with the 

Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

140059F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DONAL R. SCHMIDT, JR. AND 

THIMOTHY S. WAFFORD, Appellants 

No. 05-14-00059-CV V. 

P.I. HOLDINGS I, INC., AND COMPASS 

BANK, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02486. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees P.I. HOLDINGS I, INC., AND COMPASS BANK 

recover their costs of this appeal from appellants DONAL R. SCHMIDT, JR. AND THIMOTHY 

S. WAFFORD. 

Judgment entered April 15, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE