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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S JUNE 30, 1999 REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,215,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,261,459
<PP&E>                                         103,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,395,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          379,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        814
<COMMON>                                         3,692
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,010,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,395,085
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,511
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,476,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,231,104)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,231,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,231,104)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)



</TABLE>
Ibis RODRIGUEZ and Antolin Rodriguez, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1951

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellants' motion for voluntary dismissal of appeal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                   AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 2 to Asset Purchase Agreement (this "AMENDMENT") is made
and entered into as of the __th day of July, 1998 by and between Golf One
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and Gary Player Group,
Inc., a Florida corporation ("SELLER"), with reference to the following facts:

     A. The Company and Seller are parties to that certain Asset Purchase
Agreement dated November 1, 1997 (the "PURCHASE AGREEMENT") and to the Amendment
to the Purchase Agreement dated March 13, 1998 ("AMENDMENT NO. 1").

     B. Section 9(c) of the Purchase Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1,
provides that either Seller or the Company may terminate the Purchase Agreement
if the Closing (as defined therein) shall not have occurred on or prior to July
31, 1998.

     C. The Seller and the Company desire to amend Section 9(c) to change the
date to August 31, 1998.

     NOW THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing facts, the Company and
Seller agree as follows:

         1. Amendment to Section 9(c).

         Section 9(c) is hereby amended by changing the date set forth therein
from "July 31, 1998" to "August 31, 1998."

         2. No Other Amendments.

         Except as set forth in this Amendment, all the terms and provisions of
the Purchase Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is made and entered as of the date
and the year first above written.



GOLF ONE INDUSTRIES, INC.,                         GARY PLAYER GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation                             a Florida corporation



By: ___________________________                    By: _________________________
         Alfonso J. Cervantes,                              Joseph White
         Chief Executive Officer                            President
Exhibit








	
					
	Exhibit 10.40




       
June 21, 2018




Evercore Partners Services East L.L.C. 
55 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10055


		
	Re:  
	Renewal of Expiration Date for that certain $30,000,000.00 Committed Line of Credit 


("Line of Credit") extended by PNC Bank, National Association (the "Bank") to Evercore 
Partners Services East L.L.C. (the "Borrower")


Dear Mr. Walsh:


We are pleased to inform you that the Line of Credit has been renewed. The Expiration Date of the Line of Credit, as set forth in that certain Committed Line of Credit Note executed and delivered by the Borrower to the Bank dated June 24, 2016 (the "Note") and that certain Loan Agreement governing the Line of Credit (the "Loan Agreement"), has been extended from June 22, 2018 to June 21, 2019, or such later date as may, in the Bank's sole discretion, be designated by the Bank by written notice from the Bank to the Borrower, effective on June 23, 2018. All sums due under the Note, the Loan Agreement or any related documents, instruments and agreements (collectively, as amended from time to time, the "Loan Documents") shall be due and payable on the Expiration Date, as extended hereby. All other terms and conditions of the Loan Documents governing the Line of Credit remain in full force and effect.


It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.


Very truly yours,





cc:    Evercore LP, as Guarantor
Evercore Group Holdings L.P., as Guarantor
Oscar FRIAS-FLORENZAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1984

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1




                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following are the Company's subsidiaries as of April 28, 1999. All
beneficial interests are wholly-owned by the Company and are included in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

         Name of Subsidiary           State of Organization     Date of Incorporation
         ------------------           ---------------------     ---------------------

<S>                                        <C>                         <C>
         F & F Acquisition Corp.            New York                   9-12-94
         Mount Vernon Distributors, Inc.    New York                   10-15-93
         MA Brands, Inc.                    Delaware                   9-16-97
</TABLE>
#### AYDM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF PAMELIA, Lawrence C. Longway, Defendants-Appellees.

16-3269-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 8, 2017

*79FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Peter G. Barber, Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy, LLP, Albany, NY., L. Michael Mackey, Feeney Centi <& Mackey, Albany, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: David H. Walsh, Barth Sullivan Behr, Syracuse, NY.

PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges. Kiyo A. Matsumoto, District Judge.*

*

 Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant AYDM Associates, LLC appeals the September 8, 2016 judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment to the Town of Pamelia and Lawrence C. Longway.1

On appeal, AYDM asserts that the district court erred in holding that Emerald Acres and Liberty were not “similarly situated” for the purposes of a “class of one” claim or a “selective enforcement” claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also argues, among other things, that the district court erred in rejecting its substantive and procedural due process claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we hold these claims to be without merit. We have considered all of the arguments raised by the parties on appeal and, upon our independent review of the record, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. AYDM brought several claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 below, including: (1) procedural and substantive violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) conspiracy to deprive AYDM of its constitutional protections. AYDM also *80brought a claim for tortious interference with a contract in violation of state law,
Oliver S. STEEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-467 4D18-498

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2018]

Oliver S. Steel, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Oliver Steel challenges the January 2, 2018 order of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit that denied his challenge to his sentence for first degree murder as unconstitutional. He has challenged the order on its merits in 4D18-498, and by petition for writ of certiorari challenged the circuit court's jurisdiction to enter the order in 4D18-467. We redesignate the certiorari petition to be a final appeal of the January 2, 2018 order, consolidate the two cases and affirm the circuit court's order. *See* *Alvarez v. State* , 358 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1978) ; *Baron v. State,* 39 So.3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; *Ratliff v. State* , 914 So.2d 938 (Fla. 2005).

*Affirmed* .

Warner, Levine and Conner, JJ., concur.
Benjamin J. HERRERA, DOC #H49301, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2494

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 17, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00395

- CV

Joel Paul Bach, Appellant

v.

Texas State University, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES ROSE AND GOO DWIN
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on May 21, 2014. Having reviewed

the record

, it appears to the Court that Joel Paul Bach has not prosecuted his appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for

want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs rela ting to this appeal, both in this Court

and the court below.
Tamara L. KNIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1964

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This proceeding is dismissed as a duplicate of 2D18-1934.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
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 Annual Report of Pacific Continental
Corporation  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), we, Hal M. Brown, Chief Executive Officer, and
Michael A. Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Hal M.
      Brown
            /s/ Michael A.
      ReynoldsHal
      M. Brown
            Michael
      A. ReynoldsChief
      Executive Officer
            Chief
      Financial Officer





Dated:  March
14, 2008
EX PARTE Jessie RIGGS

1160398 (CR-15-0707)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
Eric E. BENNETT v. KWS MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

1150918

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

_____________________________________________________________________________________

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Truck, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Darron R. Ming, Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | August 1, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Darron R. Ming                                               |   |
|--------|----------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |           |   | **Darron R. Ming**                                               |   |
|   |           |   | *Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer* |   |
|   |           |   |                                                             |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to USA Truck, Inc. and will be retained by USA Truck, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Memorandum to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686 

Meteorological Trend Analysis for Phoenix-Mesa Area 

November 26, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686 

FROM: Rynda Kay, Air Quality Analysis Office, US EPA, Region 9 

DATE: November 26, 2013 

SUBJECT: Meteorological Trend Analysis for Phoenix-Mesa Area 

Under Clean Air Act section 107(d)(E)(iii), redesignation of a nonattainment area is precluded unless EPA 

determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. An 

analysis of meteorological data was undertaken to determine whether unusually favorable meteorology, which 

would not qualify as a permanent and enforceable reduction in emissions, resulted in improved air quality. As 

shown below, the period of 2002 to 2012 did not show a trend in declining air temperatures that would suggest 

that the decline in ozone concentrations was a result of favorable meteorology.

 

Analysis 

Because lower temperatures can be associated with decreased ozone concentrations, we evaluated average 

temperatures over the period 2002 -2012 to determine whether there was a cooling trend that could account for 

lower ozone levels. Table 1 below shows the mean and standard deviation (s) of daily maximum temperatures 

for Phoenix as averaged over the ozone season for 2002-2012. This time period does not show a trend in 

declining air temperatures. The long term mean and standard deviation of this quantity as averaged over 1980-

2012 is 37 +/- 6 °C. Comparing the values in Table 1 illustrates that there was no anomaly over the period 

2002-2012 relative to long-term averages. 

Year 

Mean Daily Max T (°C)

(Apr – Sept) s(°C) 4

th highest O3 value 

(ppmv) 

Design Value 

3-year average of 

4

th highest value 

2002 38 5 .090 .085 

2003 38 6 .087 .087 

2004 37 5 .080 .085 

2005 38 5 .088 .083 

2006 37 5 .085 .083 

2007 38 5 .079 .083 

2008 37 5 .081 .081 

2009 38 6 .073 .076 

2010 37 6 .079 .077 

2011 38 6 .082 .077 

2012 38 5 .083 .081 

Table1. Mean and standard deviation (s) of daily maximum temperatures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, AZ 

(Station ID: GHCND:USW00023183) as averaged over the ozone season (April –September) for 2002-2012. 
Memorandum to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686 

Meteorological Trend Analysis for Phoenix-Mesa Area 

November 26, 2013 

Data are from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search. Also shown are the 4th highest 8-

hr ozone value over the area and the design value for each year . 

Figure 1 below shows the monthly mean and s of daily maximum temperatures for Phoenix for 2002-2012. The 

period from 2002 to 2012 did not show a trend in declining maximum air temperatures or change in variability 

during the ozone season that would suggest that the observed trend in ozone concentrations was a result of 

favorable meteorology. 

Figure 1. Monthly mean and standard deviation (s) of daily maximum temperatures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, AZ 

(Station ID: GHCND:USW00023183) for 2002-2012.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
WALKER INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,868
<SECURITIES>                                    24,628
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,401
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,312
<PP&E>                                          22,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,534
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,387
<SALES>                                         16,261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,261
<CGS>                                            7,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    554
<INCOME-TAX>                                       195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
William D. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

William D. Williams, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Christ v. Christ* , 103 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamell MASON, a/k/a Jah, a/k/a Tremaine Mason, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6369

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Jamell Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mar-tinsburg, West Virginia; David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

*91PER CURIAM:

Jamell Mason seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the dis-' trict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of RecycleNet and subsidiaries, (the Company) on 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Paul Roszel President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|March 14, 2005 | /s/   Paul Roszel                 
|-------------- | ----------------------------------
|               | Paul Roszel                       
|               | President, Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23







                                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K and into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statement File No.  33-12034 and 33-31547,  of our report dated January 7, 1998,
included in Argonaut Group, Inc.'s 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders. It should
be noted that we have not audited any consolidated  financial  statements of the
Company  subsequent  to December  31,  1997 or  performed  any audit  procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.



                                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


San Francisco, California
 March  4, 1998