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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WEIDER NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS AS
OF, AND FOR THE YEAR ENDING MAY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL
REPPORT ON FORM 10-K OF WEIDER NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                       212
<INVENTORY>                                     45,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,411
<PP&E>                                          45,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,419
<BONDS>                                         42,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           247
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,756
<SALES>                                        218,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,566
<CGS>                                          136,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   151
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,008
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       17
        

</TABLE>
• 

Ia re applioatiun of 

William F. lfriedllaa, •i alo 

Filed Janua~ :~3, 1932, 

Serial ':o. 1588SiM, 

Cr11toaraphto 87•~ .. 

Hon. ~onni?sioner ot Paten~•, 

lira 

REF ID:A522~ 

DiT. 16, Room 8612 

June 19, 19~. 

Re9P0nti'N to Pa'Wnt ottice Action 4a'ed Deoftber 22, 19Sle 

Incorporate the tollawinc a4d.1 .. ion&l al&1111• 

ooor4in&Untr the tran•U\er •i'b •14 81•'-t aa4 o1rout' aean• for l11ter1m1neounc aatd eleMn"• tor or1ptographio JJVP•"'• lnoluding Hp&raw '""'' 

RlSJfAtlJC8 

ravorable coneideration is a110 requested of the &441,toaal 

olal•· 

w1111 .. P. rr1ec1aa, ., a1. 

JA'pproved for Release by NSA on 11-19-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§
#### Provident Consumer Discount Co. v. Rice

*Martin Ghen,*for plaintiff.

*Doris J. Dabrowski,*for defendants.

October 16, 1979

BRADLEY, P.J.,

Plaintiff, Provident Consumer Discount Company, demands judgment against defendants for the amount of the unpaid balance due plus attorney’s fees on a judgment note made and executed by defendants on September 22, 1978. Plaintiffs complaint states that defendants defaulted in making payments on the note on December 5, 1978. Plaintiff has attached a copy of this judgment note to the complaint.

Defendants have filed preliminary objections to the complaint, stating that the attached judgment note refers to a security agreement and a disclosure statement. Defendants claim that Pa.R.C.P. *3891019(h) has been violated as plaintiff has not attached copies of the security agreement and disclosure statement to the complaint. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h) declares that:

> “A pleading shall state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein is based upon a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is not accessible to him, it is sufficient so to state, together with the reason, and to set forth the substance of the writing.”

Plaintiff argues that this rule does not require it to attach any additional documents as the judgment note provides the basis of the complaint and sets forth the obligations of defendants.

The judgment note reads that all unpaid installments become immediately due and payable “[on] non-payment of any installment when due, or if I (we) are in default as provided in a Note, Security Agreement *and*Disclosure Statement . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) As this note, which is admitted by plaintiff to be the basis for the complaint, refers specifically to obligations incurred by defendants in the security agreement and the disclosure statement, these documents should be attached to the complaint. Accordingly,

ORDER

This October 16, 1979, it is hereby ordered and decreed that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted 20 days in which to file an amended complaint in accordance with the terms of the foregoing memorandum.
Order entered October 7, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00127-CV

MATTHEW SIDWELL, Appellant

V.

ZUO MODERN CONTEMPORARY, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-03192-E

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s fifth motion for extension of time to file his 

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than 

November 4, 2020. As the brief was first due June 4, 2020, we caution appellant 

that failure to file his brief by November 4th may result in the appeal being 

dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 15.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-101990 and 333-125064 pertaining to Top Image Systems Ltd. employee stock option plans, and Form F-3 No. 333-119885) of our report dated June 23, 2010with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Top Image Systems Ltd. as of December 31, 2009, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Top Image Systems Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009.





Tel-Aviv, Israel

June 23, 2010
/S/ KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER

Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification of CEO/Treasurer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO of the Company, and Alyson G. Beasley, Vice
President & Treasurer of the Company, certify, 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND, IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO/s/ ALYSON G. BEASLEYAlyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer


Date: August 19, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton

GILBERT MAURICE WOOD MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1521-05-1 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 18, 2005 ATLANTIC COAST AI RLINES, INC. AND AMERICAN PROTECTI ON INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Gilbert Maurice Wood, pro se , on brief). (Edward H. Grove, III; Brault Palmer Grove White & Steinhilber LLP, on brief), for appellees.

Gilbert Maurice Wood appeals a decision of the Workers’ Co mpensation Commission,

which ruled that Wood waived and abandoned his ri ght to a review of the deputy commissioner’s decision by failing to assign any spec ific errors to the deputy commi ssioner’s findings of fact or conclusions of law and failing to file a written statement. C onducting an independent review of the record, the commission also ruled that the re cord supported the deputy commissioner’s ruling that no “imposition, fraud, misrepre sentation, or mutual mistake” existed as a basis upon which to rescind a compromise settlement approve d on October 23, 2001. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion, and we hol d that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Wood v. Atlantic Co ast Airlines, Inc. , VWC File No. 201-01-48 (May 6, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and su mmarily affirm because the facts and legal

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the Cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
# C_2016335EN.01000101.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 335/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 314, 29.8.2016

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 25, 2019.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 25, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0041. DIANE BUCKNER-WEBB et al. v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

13SC117954
## 1999 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-11-1999 

# S ec ur a comm v

. S ec ur a com I nc

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :
D ocke t 97-5794

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1999 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S e c ur a c omm v

. S e c ur a c om I nc " (1999). 1999 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 36. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999/36

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-5794 Securacomm v. Securacomm Inc.

The following modifications have been made to t he Court's opinion issued on January 20, 1999 in the above-ent itled appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion:

(1) On page 7, 4th line from the bottom of the page: please change "attorney's" to "attorneys'"
(2) On page 7, 12th line from the botto m of the page: please delete the word "either"
(3) On page 11, 3rd line from the botto m of the page: please change "attorney" to "attorneys'"
(4) On page 12, lines 17-18: please un italicize the word "In"; before "Tommy Hilfiger" please add (in italics as part of the case name) "ISCYRA v." See n.2 on page 10 for prop er citation form.
(5) On page 13, 3rd line of text: plea se change the word "sufficient" to "insufficient"
(6) On page 15, 18th line of text: please add a "." after the parenthetical.
(7) On page 15, 23rd line of text: please change the date in the parenthetical from "1995" to "1975"

/s/ P. Dou glas Sisk, Clerk

February 11, 1999
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40570 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CEDRIC PIERRE WEBB, a/k/a Cedric Nickerson, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-94-CR-172-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cedric Pierre Webb moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion for a trial transcript at government
expense. A prisoner is not entitled to a trial transcript to assist him in the preparation of a postconviction motion under 28 U.S.C.No. 96-40570 - 2 - § 2255. United States v. MacCollum , 426 U.S. 317, 321-24 (1976);

see also United States v. Herrera , 474 F.2d 1049, 1049 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 414 U.S. 861 (1973)(§ 2255 case). The filing of a § 2255 motion is a condition precedent to the expenditure of public funds under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), which allows such expenditure to indigent federal defendants under certain conditions. MacCollum , 426 U.S. at 321. Because Webb has not filed a § 2255 motion, the district court did not err by denying his request for a trial transcript at Government expense. See id . Because Webb fails to present an issue with arguable basis in law or fact, he fails to present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, and his motion for IFP is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Webb’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Webb that any additional frivolous or malicious appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Webb is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous or malicious. IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 23.1



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors
NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our Report of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 11, 2005 on the consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, included in this Form 10-KSB Amendment No. 1, into
the Company's previously filed Registration Statements (File Nos.333-33738,
333-36098, 333-42477, 333-85422, 333-99183, 333-101588, 333-103172, 333-107239,
333-109778, 333-110189, 333-110329 and 333-114123).


/s/ STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Irvine, California
May 13, 2005
OFFICE OF l-NE AITORNEY QENRRAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
ITonQnllle w. Lee O’l)anlol, pa&w 4 

prorid I 

Artiolo 1007, Ootlo of Qrlniiml Prooodurm of Towo, 

ìTh a Cb o to r nor M I o ifor l mar6 ior tho qpnhonoloa o i o n0 l o o a r ood f 6 So lo n7 in b h S0 Sta t0 wh o 

i0 OVOdiXIl TOO( t, b J Oa W 

9 

l uoh other $0 be publ:ohed ia ouoh unaor 00 ha mom0 noo(i llkoly 60 ettooPi $ho ornot. mm nyard ohall bo prld out of tha 

Stoto TnuurT to tho pors6n the beoomeo l ntitlod to 

i% up o a l o utulo ~ta or tha a o r ua or mo itimg tlm 

foota wkioh oneidle ruoh porsoa te rroeire it.* 

mti. 8b tb OUWSltl BO Ol4 Ud Witi 

co ii 

ur luS$or Ltooli indioatm that thr ala 

y $8 tb only 0x1: whioh ham kw illed 

di.aH that (rho l rmot of PI4Nop 

may uo&Smaoo, they do aolc ua@ 

h4w@RmdotburuttlP4ntaf4an 

rhwtbwr or net he udo tha amOb Qotr 

w thanto furniohed bin W wa other peroou~ 

ATTO!U?EY ORtlQ’tAL Ot TXA6
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 16, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00676

- CV

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 404 FULLER ST., KERRVILLE, KERR COUNTY,

TEXAS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16620A Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

This is an appeal of a judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. The first brief appellant

filed on February 20, 2018 was stricken because t he brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the rules requiring appellant to provide cit ations to the appellate record. The second brief filed by appellant on May 7, 2018 was not ordered stricken; howeve r, appellant was informed the court could consider her appellate complaints waived due to inadequate briefing.

In her reply brief filed on July 2, 2018, appellant asserts she requested a copy of the appellate record from the trial court but never received the record. Our record reflects the trial court signed an order finding appellant indigent for purposes of the a ppellate record. Although the appellate record was filed in this court without requiring appellant to pay the fees for the preparation of the appellate record, appellant was never provided with a copy of the record.

It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this court include a copy of the appellate record with appellant’s copy of this order. Appellant ’s briefs filed on May 7, 2018 and July 2, 2018 are STRICKEN. Appellant must file an amended brief no later than thirty days from the

date of this ord e r

. Appellant is reminded that her brief contains numerous violations of Rule38.1 as referenced in this court’s March 8, 2018 order and May 9, 2018 letter separate and apart from her failure to provide citations to the appellate record , including her failure to cite any case law or other authority in support of her arguments in her original brief or in response to the law cited by the State in her reply brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i) (requiring argument to be supported by appropriate citations to authori ty). Appellant is also reminded that her failure to correct the briefing deficiencies in this third opportunity will allow this court to consider her appellate complaints waived due to inadequate briefing. See, e.g., Lott v. First Bank , No. 04

- 13

- 00531

- C V, 2014 WL 4922896, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Oct. 1, 2014, no pet.); Castillo v. Peoples , No. 04

- 13

- 00311

- CV, 2014 WL 1089750, at *3 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014, pet. denied).

Entered on this 16 th day of July, 2018.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk of Court
KALU Exhibit 10.6 - 3.31.2013 - 10Q






Exhibit 10.6


Description of 2013 Long-Term Incentive Umbrella Plan 
Under the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan


2013-2015 Performance Goal and Award Pool            
The performance goal for the LTI Performance Period shall be an average of $5.0 million per year over the LTI Performance Period in Net cash provided by operating activities, as reported in the Company's Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows (“Cash Flow”).  The maximum value of shares of common stock issuable upon reaching performance goal shall equal 15% of the aggregate Cash Flow over the LTI Performance Period.
The purpose of establishing the maximum pool under Company's 2013-2015 Long-Term Incentive Umbrella Plan (the "2013-2015 LTI Umbrella Plan") is to improve tax efficiency with respect to the Company's incentive programs and achieve an Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) "performance based" exemption for annual bonus amounts earned by the designated participants identified below, during the LTI Performance Period. The 2013-2015 LTI Umbrella Plan is authorized by and subject to the terms of the Kaiser Aluminum Corporation Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan. 


The specified maximum pool allocations, as established and defined below are subject to the Company's Compensation Committee's authority to reduce, but not increase, the amount of the actual bonus earned and payable to each designated participant under the 2013-2015 LTI Umbrella Plan. It is anticipated that the payouts to the covered employees under the 2013-2015 LTI Umbrella Plan will be reduced by the Company's Compensation Committee through the exercise of negative discretion, which is permitted under Section 162(m). The Company's Compensation Committee's exercise of negative discretion with respect to one participant's award under the bonus pool shall not result in an increase in the amount payable to another participant under the bonus pool.    


Allocation of Award Pool to Executives
	
			
	Executive Name
	Executive Title
	Percent of Pool Allocated 
to Executive1

	Jack A. Hockema
	Chief Executive Officer
	56.15%

	John Barneson
	SVP, Corporate Development
	9.53%

	John M. Donnan
	EVP - Legal, Compliance and Human Resources
	11.63%

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	[Percentage]

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	[Percentage]






1 Subject to an aggregate maximum value per executive of $5.0 million and an aggregate maximum of 500,000 shares of common stock per executive per calendar year, pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan.


Administrative Provisions


The 2013 LTI Umbrella Plan only applies to the calculation and award of incentive awards, if any.  There will be no duplication of benefits created by the 2013 LTI Umbrella Plan.
The 2013 LTI Umbrella Plan will not increase any benefits that may be payable under any severance and/or change in control agreements