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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          33,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,893
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (214)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,274
<PP&E>                                          22,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,771)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        214
<COMMON>                                         1,678
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,904
<SALES>                                         20,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,923
<CGS>                                           19,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   263
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,398)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Robert J. TREASE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-686

Supreme Court of Florida.

[April 26, 2018]

Mark E. Olive, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Stephen D. Ake, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

*303We have for review Robert J. Trease's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Trease's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We withdraw the opinion issued on January 24, 2018, and substitute this opinion in its place.

Trease's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida* , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied* , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Trease's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State* , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), *cert. denied* , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock* , Trease responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case. Then, after this Court decided *State v. Silvia* , 235 So.3d 349 (Fla. 2018), Trease responded to this Court's order to show cause why *Silvia* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Trease's responses to the orders to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Trease's valid waiver of postconviction proceedings and counsel in 2008 precludes him from claiming a right to relief under *Hurst* . *See**Silvia* , 235 So.3d at 351 ; *Trease v. State* , 41 So.3d 119 (Fla. 2010). Moreover, Trease's sentence of death became final in 2001. *Trease v. State* , 768 So.2d 1050, 1053 (Fla. 2000). Thus, even if Trease's postconviction waiver did not preclude him from raising a *Hurst* claim, *Hurst* would not apply retroactively to Trease's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock* , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

LEWIS, J., dissents.

CANADY, J., recused.
exhibit10-6a.htm


    

      
        
           


        

        
           


          
            

          

        

        
           


        

      


      Exhibit
10.6a

      


      AMENDMENTS
TO THE

      CHANGE
IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

      BETWEEN

      IMPERIAL
CAPITAL BANCORP, INC. AND NORVAL L. BRUCE

      TO
COMPLY WITH

      INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE SECTION 409A

      


       

      WHEREAS,
on February 1, 2006, Norval L. Bruce entered into a Change in Control Severance
Agreement with Imperial Capital Bancorp, Inc. (formerly known as ITLA Capital
Corporation) (the “Agreement”); and

       

      WHEREAS,
the Agreement includes an election provision that may provide for deferred
compensation and therefore must be amended to comply with Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code and the regulations and guidance of general applicability
issued thereunder; and

       

      WHEREAS,
the Agreement may be amended by a writing signed by the parties to the
Agreement.

       

      NOW,
THEREFORE, the foregoing considered, it is agreed as follows:

       

      That
effective as of January 1, 2005, the Agreement is amended by revising Paragraph
3(a)(2) to read as follows:

       

      “(2)  a
sum equal to 24 times the monthly premium cost being paid by the Company to
provide such health, dental and life insurance benefits as are maintained for
the Employee on the Date of Termination, with the monthly premium cost being
determined immediately prior to the Date of Termination;”

       

      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 31st day of December,
2008, effective as of January 1, 2005.

       

       

      IMPERIAL
CAPITAL BANCORP, INC.

       

      By:            /s/ Jeffrey L.
Lipscomb

       

      NORVAL L.
BRUCE

       

      By:            /s/ Norval L.
Bruce
Dwight KENT v. STATE

CR-15-1163

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form
S-8 No. 33-20815 pertaining to the 1987 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan,
Registration Statement Form S-8 No. 33-881100 pertaining to the 1993
Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement Form S-8 No.
33-81124 pertaining to the 1991 Long-Term Incentive Plan, Registration Statement
Form S-8 No. 333-88744 pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Option Plan and
Registration Statement Form S-8 No. 333-43631 pertaining to the Non-Employee
Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, of our report dated March 18, 2005, except
for Note 13, as to which the date is March 30, 2005 and except for Note 1 as to
which the date is November 11, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Almost Family, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/S/ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Louisville, Kentucky
November 11, 2005
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0612

_________________ DANIEL JAMES MAROZZO,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Daniel James Marozzo, to all counsel of r ecord , and to the Ho norable Matthew Cuffe , Dis trict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 28 2020

10/28/2020
Case Number: DA 19-0612
1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1139

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Jose H. Valles-Juarez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 22, 2007 Filed: January 25, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jose Valles-Juarez appeals the 168-m onth sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For reversal, he argue s the court gave undue weight to the Guidelines and did not properly account for the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that favored a lower sentence.-2- We disagree, and conclude that the se ntence--which was at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range --is not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appe llate courts must review sentences for unreasonableness); United States v. Tobacco , 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should havereceived significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor , or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in wei ghing them); United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). At sentencing the district court recited the section 3553(a) factors and indicated it had considered all of them, stating in particular that the criminal-justice goals of deterrence and an opportunity for rehabilitation supported the sentence it chose. See United States v. Long Soldier , 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is whether district court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of fact ors leads to conclusion that they support reasonableness of district court’s sent encing decision); United States v. Franklin , 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required is evidence that district court considered relevant matters, not that court made specific findings on each § 3553(a) factor). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         568,419                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,005                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               569,424                       0
<PP&E>                                      61,100,449                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,332,441                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,337,432                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          569,424                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,768,008                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,337,432                       0
<SALES>                                      2,158,987               8,526,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,162,537               8,539,087
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,404                 134,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,118,133               8,404,307
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,118,133               8,404,307
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.353                   1.401
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.353                   1.401
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 PROBATION OFFICE

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND DISCLOSURE NOTICE 

RE: Sharma, Rakesh 

1:18CR00089 

 

The defendant has been found guilty and Michael R. Barrett, U.S. District Court Judge has ordered a 

presentence investigation. Local Rule 32.1 of this Court dictates certain time frames for completion of the 

presentence report and the disclosure process. Therefore, in compliance with Local Rule 32.1 you are advised: 

1. The presentence report will be completed by U. S. Probation Officer Laura Jensen, 513-564-7561. 

2. The report will be available for disclosure to the parties on 2/13/2019 (35 days from conviction). The 

initial presentence report will be provided electronically to the attorney for the defendant and the attorney for the 

government. The defense attorney shall promptly provide one copy of the report to the defendant. 

3. The attorney for the defendant and the government have 21 days from the disclosure date to communicate 

any objections to the initial presentence report. Therefore, objections shall be communicated to the probation 

officer not later than 3/6/2019. 

4. Efforts will be made by the parties to resolve any objections to the report prior to its submission to the Court. 

Any unresolved objections will be outlined by the probation officer in an addendum, which will be attached to 

the final report and forwarded to the Court not later than 3/27/2019. 

Copies to: Defendant 

John S. Dierna, Chief Defense Attorney 

U. S. Probation Officer Clerk of Court

 Ass't. U. S. Attorney 

Date: January 9, 2019 File 

 

Case: 1:18-cr-00089-MRB Doc #: 32 Filed: 01/09/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 94
# OCT**~** 

# 8 2013 

# STATE OF COLORI\00
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH

Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Col orado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr

. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 81 00 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692·2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) 692·3090 www.colorado

.gov/cdphe 30 September 2013
Richard Payton 8P-AR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129
Dear Richard: Colorado Department 

### ofPublic Health and Environment

Enclosed is the Addendum for the "Technical Suppor1 Document for the March 22, 2009 Pagosa Springs Exceptional Event" submitted to the EPA on March 30, 2012. This addendum addresses additional support regarding local sources and controls outlined in the letter sent by EPA Region 8 on Apri12, 2013. This letter states that the Exceptional Event documentation submitted by APCD did not "sufficiently investigate whether local sources ofwindblown dust may have contributed to the exceedances." Since r eceiving the EPA letter, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (Division) conducted a thorough investigation, including EPA's suggestions, of local sources ofwindblown dust and relevant reasonable controls in place at the time ofthe March 22, 2009 Exceptional Event. These sources include the nine acre park along South 51h Street, the lots on the southeast corners ofU
.S. Highway 160 and Main Street/Lewis Street, and the expansion ofthe Springs Resort and Spa. This addendum documents the results ofthis investigation. This addendum, the original report, and the analysis and data contained within it, clearly shows that this exceptional event passed the required tests under 40 CFR 50.14 (3)(iv). We respectfull y request a review ofthis addendum and concurrence by EPA on the March 22, 2009 natural high wind/blowing dust event in Pagosa Springs. Please let me know ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,

# -~ Gordon E. Pierce Program Manager Technical Services Program Air Pollution Control Division

cc. Deirdre Rothery, EPA Kyle Olson, EPA Lisa Devore, APCD Kaitlin Stabrava, APCD Terry Furuli, APCD
# FLATWATER STUDIOS **PREFLIGHT CHECKLIST**

**ENVIRONMENTAL:**

□ Check for people, animals, property in the flight vicinity. □ Notify any bystanders or nearby property owner of your intentions. □ If flying in controlled airspace, notify airspace authority of your intentions. □ First Aid / Safety Kit on hand, stocked, readily accessible, and visible to anyone in the area 

## HARDWARE / EQUIPMENT:   VISUALLY INSPECT THE AIRFRAME ** **

□ Cracks (especial ly in high stress areas like joints) □ Loose or damaged screws / fasteners / bands / straps / ties □ Loose or damaged wiring □ Loose or damaged connections (solder, plugs, etc) □ Inspect prop mounts & screws & apply slight counter pressure on arms to check for loosened construction □ Battery/batteries fully charged, properly seated & secured □ Remove props and test fail-safe behavior (if applicable) □ Props are smooth and free of damage/defect (check blade, surface, & hub) □ Tighten prop adapters (careful not to over tighten which may damage prop) □ Ensure voltage alarm is connected □ Ensure arming/idle timeout is properly configured (6-15 seconds is generally acceptable) □ Check whether the right model is selected in the tra nsmitter (if applicable) □ Check your RC transmitter shows the right range and centering for all sticks □ If desired, perform range test


## PRE**-FLIGHT:**   POWER UP ** **

□ Batteries charged & secured □ Position quad in a level, safe location for takeoff □ If using onboard video recorder, turn on camera □ All transmitter controls move freely in all directions □ All transmitter trims in its neutral position □ All transmitter switches in correct position (typically away) □ Transmitter throttle to zero □ Radio transmitter on □ Connect/power on battery to airframe □ Ensure led indicators & audible tones are all correct (e.g., GPS and Compass are properly calibrated) □ Timer on (if applicable) □ Scan for nearby people or animals □ Stand clear - audibly, loudly a nnounce the word "CLEAR!" □ Arm flight controller 

### **PRE TAKEOFF **

□ Increase throttle slightly listening for any abnormalities □ Short 20-30 second hover at 3-5 feet (listen for any weird vibrations or anything that sounds loose)
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 23 

Directing the Architect of the Capitol to preserve evidence of the January 

6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol so that evidence of the 

attack may be made available for viewing by visitors to the Capitol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2021 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Architect of the Capitol to preserve evidence 

of the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States 

Capitol so that evidence of the attack may be made 

available for viewing by visitors to the Capitol. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE OF ATTACK ON 

4 UNITED STATES CAPITOL. 

5 (a) PRESERVATION; AVAILABILITY FOR VIEWING BY

6 VISITORS.—The Architect of the Capitol shall preserve 

7 evidence of the January 6, 2021 attack on the United 

8 States Capitol, including by preserving features which 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 23 IH 

1 were damaged in the attack, so that evidence of the attack 

2 may be made available for viewing by visitors to the Cap3 itol. 

4 (b) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out this section, 

5 the Architect shall consult with the Office of the Historian 

6 of the House of Representatives, the Senate Historical Of7 fice, and the Joint Committee on the Library to determine 

8 which evidence is most appropriate for preservation and 

9 the most effective methods for making such evidence avail10 able for viewing by visitors to the United States Capitol. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                        |  |  |
| Date:                                                                                  | May 14, 2013 |   |
|                                                                                   |   |   |
| /s/ John P. McLaughlin                                                                 |   |
| John P. McLaughlin President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

|                                                                                                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                  |  |  |
|                                                                                                             |   |   |
| /s/ Peter S. Garcia                                                                                              |   |
| Peter S. Garcia Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |   |
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
Susan A. MORROW, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-3766

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

Susan A Morrow, Ocala, pro se.

Sheron Wells, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Office of General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Department of Corrections.

No Appearance for other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Denelson Kenta BROWN v. STATE

CR-15-1431

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.