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-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,077
<PP&E>                                          13,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,862
<SALES>                                        173,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,165
<CGS>                                           84,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,598
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,259
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,339
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,339
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
case xiv.

#### Assignees of David Ramsay, *vs.*Thomas Ellis, M. White and Miss Ellis.

[Tried before Chancellor Rutledge, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,

March, 1810.]

THE bill filed in this case involved many important points, but chiefly relative to the management and settlement of an estate. One point only seems necessary to be reported. It related to the allowance of commissions to the complainant, for managing the affairs of an estate.

The Circuit Judge stated the point and delivered his opinion as follows :

This case was referred to the master to investigate the accounts of complainant, as executor of Ellis *;*also, his accounts against the defendants residuary legatees of Ellis, and to report thereon. It is now brought forward upon the master’s report on various exceptions which were made by the defendant, and which the master has submitted to the determination of the Court. 1. That executor is not entitled to commissions subsequent to 1789, because he never rendered any account to the ordinary from the time of passing the executor’s act in 1789, to the year 1799, when his transactions with the estate were closed, and the act expressly declares that executors shall annually, whilst the estate is in their care, render in their accounts upon oath, and if they neglect to do so, they should not be entitled to any commissions. Complainant’s counsel contended *79that the law was not retrospective, and was only applicable to persons avIio should become executors subsequent to that period *i*that it was an ex post facto law and varied complainants contract, inasmuch as he was not previously obliged to render in such account. I am of opinion that no law can be enacted to make an executor responsible for acts done or duties omitted where there was no law which enjoined him to the performance of them *;*nor could he be made subject to any penalty on that account j for where there is no law, there can be no transgression : consequently no penalty can be inflicted. But the law in question cannot by any means be deemed an ex post facto law; it imposes no penalty for past transactions, it only declares what shall be the conduct of executors hereafter, and what the consequences of their neglect to pursue the line of conduct therein prescribed. If the executor has neglected to render in his account as the law directs, subsequent to the enacting of it, he is undoubtedly subject to the penalty thereby inflicted. It would be a very extraordinary doctrine to lay down, that those only should be liable to the penalty who should become executors subsequent to the passing of the law, and that those who were executors anterior to it might violate it with impunity.

Dr. Ramsay and PriNgxe, argued for complainant..

Ford, for defendant.

Decree that commissioners be allowed on the accounts prior to the act of 1789 and disallowed on the-accounts subsequent to that time.

From the decree given on the other points of the case, there was an appeal, and the decree was affirmed. But there was no appeal on the point of commissions.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ALFREDO LUGOMIRAMONTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70443

Agency No. A077-195-285

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Alfredo Lugo-Miramontes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for adjustment of status

and waivers of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) and 1182(i). Our

FILED

DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70443

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part

and deny in part the petition for review. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to deny LugoMiramontes’ applications for waivers of inadmissibility, which were denied for

failure to show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, as well as his application

for adjustment of status, which was denied in the exercise of discretion. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). 

Lugo-Miramontes’ contention that the agency erroneously relied on his

attempted fraudulent entry in 1998 to deny his applications for relief is not

supported by the record, and therefore does not amount to a colorable

constitutional claim. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-1996
<CASH>                                          63,957
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,438
<INVENTORY>                                     93,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               331,108
<PP&E>                                         122,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          225,548
<BONDS>                                             19
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           916
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   408,610
<SALES>                                        895,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               895,197
<CGS>                                          787,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  882,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,673)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,217
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,059
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,059
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4171 

To repeal the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to extend the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. TEAGUE (for himself, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, Ms. KOSMAS, Mr. 

KISSELL, and Mrs. HALVORSON) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the 

Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury 

to extend the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘TARP Sunset and Fis5 cal Responsibility Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TARP EXTENSION AUTHORITY. 

7 Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 

8 Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5230) is amended— 


TJAMES on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4171 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(a) TERMINATION.—’’; and 

2 (2) by striking subsection (b). 

3 SEC. 3. TARP FUNDS USED TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all funds 

5 repaid, and profits paid, to the Secretary of the Treasury 

6 by companies in connection with assistance received under 

7 the Troubled Asset Relief Program under title I of the 

8 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 shall be 

9 used to pay down the national debt. 

10 SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC 

11 DEBT. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3101 of title 31, United 

13 States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘minus the 

15 amount described in subsection (d)’’ before ‘‘, out16 standing at one time’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(d) The amount described in this subsection is 

19 $700,000,000,000 minus the amount of troubled assets 

20 purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury under the 

21 Troubled Asset Relief Program under title I of the Emer22 gency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 outstanding on 

23 December 31, 2009, but in no case shall the amount de24 scribed in this subsection be less than $0.’’. 


TJAMES on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4171 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of this sec2 tion shall take effect on January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


TJAMES on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Collectible Concepts Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul S. Lipschutz, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

       (3)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Collectible Concepts Group, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  July 26, 2004                    By: /s/ PAUL S. LIPSCHUTZ
                                           ------------------------
                                        Paul S. Lipschutz
                                        Principal Financial Officer
ex4-7_f20f12312009.htm


 



Exhibit 4.7







Summary of the Construction and Engineering Design Contract with Shanghai Ming Fang Architectural Research and Design Institute Co. Ltd.







On August 24, 2009, Shanghai Jinpan Electric Co Ltd. (the “Company”) entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) with Shanghai Ming Fang Architectural Research and Design Institute Co. Ltd  ( the “Architectural Design Firm”)for the design of three factory buildings – designated as factory buildings A (1565 Square Meters), B (2102 Square Meters), and C (39600 Square Meters) - and employee dormitory buildings (5130 Square Meters) (collectively “Buildings”) in the Company’s Shanghai facility.







The Architectural Design Firm agreed to provide the schematic design for the Buildings and the placement of production equipment, the design development for the Buildings (except factory building C), and the construction documents for the Buildings (except for factory building C).







The total price of the Agreement was RMB 191,355, payable in several installments depending on the progress of the design and construction of the Buildings. The following table summarizes the payment terms:


 


 




	  	
Completion of Schematic Design

	
Completion of Design Development

	
Completion of Construction Documents

	
Completion of Construction

	
 


Total


	
Factory Building A

	
 


RMB4,695

	
 


RMB7,042

	
 


RMB9,391

	
 


RMB2,347

	
 


RMB23,475


	
Factory Building B

	
 


RMB6,306

	
 


RMB9,459

	
 


RMB12,612

	
 


RMB3,153

	
 


RMB31,530


	
Factory Building C

	
 


RMB 59,400

	
 


-

	
 


-

	
 


-

	
 


RMB59,400


	
Dormitory Buildings

	
 


RMB15,390

	
 


RMB23,085

	
 


RMB30,780

	
 


RMB7,695

	
 


RMB76,950
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


        Chemical Design Holdings plc                       (United Kingdom)
        Chemical Design Inc.                               (New Jersey)
        Chemical Design International Limited              (United Kingdom)
        Chemical Design Limited                            (United Kingdom)
        Chemical Design SARL                               (France)
        Chemical Design Supplies Limited                   (United Kingdom)
        Chemical Design West Coast Inc.                    (California)
        Genetics Computer Group Inc.                       (Wisconsin)
        Health Designs, Inc.                               (New York)
        Molecular Simulations GmbH                         (Germany)
        Molecular Simulations Incorporated                 (Delaware)
        Molecular Simulations Limited                      (United Kingdom)
        Molecular Simulations SARL                         (France)
        MSI kk                                             (Japan)
        Oxford Molecular Group, Inc.                       (Delaware)
        Oxford Molecular Limited (UK)                      (United Kingdom)
        Oxford Molecular SA                                (France)
        Synopsys                                           (England)
**Exhibit 10.48**

 

**ZORANCORPORATION**

***Summary of Compensation Arrangements***

***with Named ExecutiveOfficers and Directors***

 

**OFFICERS**

 

Set forth below is a description of the compensation arrangements foreach of our executive officers.

 
| ** **       | ** ** | ** **                       | ** ** | **2005**        | ** ** |
|------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|-----------------|------------|
| **Name**         | ** ** | **Title**                        | ** ** | **Base Salary** | ** ** | **Target Bonus** | ** ** |
|             |       |                             |       |            |       |   |   |
| Gerzberg, Levy   |       | President/CEO                    |       | $               | 391,000    |   | 100 | % |
| Martino, Camillo |       | Chief  Operating Officer         |       | $               | 287,500    |   | 87 | % |
| Schneider, Karl  |       | Chief  Financial Officer         |       | $               | 241,000    |   | 70 | % |
| Shenberg, Isaac  |       | Senior VP,  Business Development |       | $               | 200,000    |   | 60 | % |
|                  |            |                                  |            |                 |            |  |  |  |  |

 

The executive bonus is based upon both company and individualperformance factors during the bonus period. The percentage of bonus payout is based upon achievement of both companyand individual goals and decided upon by the Board of Directors compensationcommittee.

 

**DIRECTORS**

 

The general Zoran Corporation Board of Directors compensation planprovides the following compensation components for service as board members, forparticipation at board meetings, and service on board committees:

 

•                  Annual retainerfee of $20,000 per Director

•                  Per meeting feeof $2,000 per Director

•                  Quarterlycommittee fee of $2,500 per chairperson of a board committee

•                  Quarterlycommittee fee of $1,500 per Director serving on a committee

•                  Initial stockoption grants of 30,000 shares per Director on appointment

•                  Annual stockoption grants of 15,000 shares per Director

 

The majorityof the director stock option grants have been granted pursuant to Zoran’s 1995Director’s Stock Option Plan.  The initialoptions grants become exercisable in installments of one-fourth (1/4) of thetotal number of shares on each of the first, second, third and fourthanniversaries of the date of grant.  The annualoption grants become fully exercisable on the one year anniversary of the dateof grant, subject to the directors continuous service.  Options granted have a term of ten (10)years.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ROBERT LYLE, :
Case No. 3:17-cv-00368
Plaintiff, :
: District Judge Walter H. Rice
vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL:
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 3

Defendant. :

DECISION AND ENTRY

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of
United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #12), to whom this case was
originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have
been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on May 8, 2019 (Doc. #12) is
ADOPTED in full;

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability finding is vacated;

3. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Robert Lyle was under a
“disability” within the meaning of the Social Security Act;

4. This case is remanded to the Commissioner and the Administrative Law
Judge under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration


5.

consistent with the Report and Recommendations and this Decision and
Entry; and

The case is terminated on the Court’s docket.

LDiawet Rover

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff

ELDORA JAMES

v. Record No. 1812-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. MARCH 12, 1996 AND TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Thomas Stark, IV; Williamson & Lavecchia, on brief), for appellant. (P. Dawn Bishop; Matthew J. Ide; Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellees.

Eldora James appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying her application seeking compensation for an occupational disease. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule

5A:27. This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in The Stenrich Group v. Jemmott , ___ Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under the present provisions of the Act").

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed

.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Orchid Cellmark Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                                                                                  
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 3, 2006 |  | /S/ THOMAS A. BOLOGNA                                                            
|                        |  | Thomas A. Bologna Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)          
|                        | 
|Dated: November 3, 2006 |  | /S/ JOHN C. DEIGHAN                                                              
|                        |  | John C. Deighan Corporate Controller (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.