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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<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>                                          16,454
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             215
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,395
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     40,846
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        175,789
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,891
<DEPOSITS>                                     228,739
<SHORT-TERM>                                       769
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,252
<LONG-TERM>                                        106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,298
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  20,025
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,515
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,274
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,787
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,861
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,910
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,879
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      406
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  12
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,230
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,230
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,509
<LOANS-PAST>                                       685
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,701
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      155
<RECOVERIES>                                        40
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,148
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,148
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
J. S06014/15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.H.G., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: L.A.L., MOTHER : No. 813 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree entered February 5, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Family Court, at No(s): CP-51-AP000222-2013; FID #51-FN-002419-2011

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.C.G., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: L.A.L., MOTHER : No. 814 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree entered February 5, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Family Court, at No(s): CP-51-AP000223-2013; FID #51-FN-002419-2011

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED MARCH 05, 2015

I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2).

However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusions 

pertaining to Subsection 2511(b). As the majority states, there was “little, if 

any” evidence presented about the bond between Mother and the Children. 

My review of the termination hearing transcript reveals the following. DHS 

social work service manager Sakinah Jones testified positively about the 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S06014/15

- 2 -

bond between Children and the foster parents, and stated that termination 

of Mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to the Children. See

N.T., 2/5/14, at 37, 39-40, 46. However, there was no question posed to 

Ms. Jones, and no testimony from her, about the bond between Mother and 

the Children. The sole evidence about the interaction between Mother and 

the Children during visits was Ms. Jones’ testimony that the visits “appear to 

be appropriate in a supervised setting.” Id. at 53. While Mother testified at 

the hearing, she likewise did not testify about any bond with the Children.

In its opinion, the trial court’s sole discussion under Subsection (b) 

was the Children’s bond with their foster parents, and Ms. Jones’ testimony 

that permanency and adoption were in the Children’s best interests. Id. at 

5. However, the opinion was silent as to whether the Children had a bond 

with Mother.

In light of the foregoing, I would remand for the court to conduct 

further evidentiary hearings and enter findings of fact and conclusion of law 

on this issue. See In re of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(stating court: (1) must discern nature and status of parent-child bond, 

paying close attention to effect on child of permanently severing bond; (2) 

should also consider importance to child of continuity of relationships; and 

(3) must consider whether natural parental bond exists between child and 

parent, and whether termination would destroy existing, necessary and 

beneficial relationship).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT,  INC.  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  QUARTER  ENDED
SEPTEMBER  30,  1999,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         217
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  70822
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1825
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76185
<PP&E>                                         22457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          35108
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       137
<OTHER-SE>                                     90431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173737
<SALES>                                        174189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174189
<CGS>                                          125212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               72198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8373)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.20)



</TABLE>
September 28, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with Clean Air Task Force (CATF)

Attendees :

Kevin Culligan, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Ellen Kurlansky, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPAR William Meroney, EPA/OAR/OAP/CAMD Conrad Schneider, Clean Air Task Force Joel Chasen, Clean Air Task Force Bruce Phillips, Executive Di rector, NorthBridge Group Steven Brick, independent consultant on the Boar d of Directors of the Clean Air Task Force

Discussion :

A general discussion was held of the comments submitted by Clean Air Task Force on the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
EXHIBIT 10.18

    

    

    RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD NOTICE

    

    

    «FIRST_NAME» «MIDDLE_NAME». «LAST_NAME»

    «HOME_STREET»

    «HOME_CITY», «HOME_PROVINCE» «HOME_POSTAL_CODE»

    

    

    Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc. 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), on January 31,
        2019, you were granted a restricted stock unit award (“RSU”) in the amount of «number_awarded» units.  Each RSU is equivalent to one share of common stock upon
        vesting.

    

    

    Subject to your continued employment with the Company, your award will vest over four years in accordance with the following schedule:

    

    

    25% vest on May 8, 2020

    25% vest on May 8, 2021

    25% vest on May 8, 2022

    25% vest on May 8, 2023

    

    

    Until vested, the units represented by this award are not entitled to receive cash dividends and do not have the right to vote. This award
        will vest immediately upon a change in control, death or permanent and total disability as defined in Section 2 of the Plan.  Awards not vested at retirement will be forfeited. Please consult the 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan Prospectus for a complete understanding of Havertys’ equity award program.

    

    

    This is a summary of the award.  The grant agreement and Plan Prospectus are the authoritative source for all questions on awards made under
        the Plan.
#### M’Chord *vs.*Ford, &c.

April 15.

Rivorlo the Fayette Circuit; Jesse Bledsoe, Judge.

*Currency. Money. Action. Errata.*

Petition' fc Summons. Case *09.*

Bromisory note for current money of Kentucky.

in (he expressions iu *167Chambers vs. George, 5 “Littcll, 335, payable ia the money of this State,” there is a typogru pbieai error; it should read “currency of this State.”

*166Judge Mills

delivered the Opinion of tbo Court.

This is a petition and summons on a note promising to pay seven hundred dollars, *se*current money of Kentucky.” The defendant demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment against the plaintiff, on the ground that a summons and petition could not be sustained on the note. To reverse this judgment, this writ of error is prosecuted.

This court decided, in the case of Chambers vs. George, 5 Litt. 335, that a summons and petition *167oonld not be sustained on a note promising to pay a number of dollars in (he “currency of Kentucky.” In that opinion, as printed, the following expressions, in reciting the note, are used, which might have led the court beibw into this conclusion, ‘‘payable in the *money*of this Slate ”

Currency, when bank notes is the o ily currency, does not moan *money.*

But “current *money*ofKontuoky,” docs, mean *money.*

*Wickliffe*for plaintiffs; *Chinn*for defendants.

But in this there is a typographical error, and <he expression ought to be, “ payable in the *currency*of this State,”

This court has also said, in the same case and in others, that bank notes, so lately the only currency ot this State, are not money.

And, of course, as the remedy by summons and petition, embraced notes or bonds stipulating the payment of money only, it could not embrace such notes.

But as bank notes are not money, it also follows, that this note cannot intend bank notes, but gold or silver. The word “ current” preceding the word “ money,” cannot change its meaning, because it is equally applicable to that kind of money made current by act of Congress, which in truth, is the only current *money*of Kentucky. *Current money,*does Rot mean the same thing as “ *currency*

It follows, therefore, that the judgment in this case is erroneous, and must be reversed with costs, and the cause be remanded fo>* further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 32.1

                      Pacific WebWorks, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

..      the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
       December 31, 2005, 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-KSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.


Date:   March 28, 2006
                                   /s/ Kenneth W. Bell
                                   ____________________________________
                                   Kenneth W. Bell
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Principal Financial Officer
#### White vs. Clarke *&c.*

December 19.

Error to the Madison Circuit; Geo. Shannon, Judge.

*Rescission of contract for personalty.*

Chancery, Case 128.

Contract for ;ihor.ero=cmded on the hill of tho purchaser, and perpetual injunction to a judgment rec.ovei'O't on the note for the purchase money.

Judge Owseey

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Tisis was a bill in equity, exhibited *by*White, in the circuit court, for the purpose of setting aside a contract, and having delivered up to he cancelled, a note, which, under the contract, was executed bv bita to Green for one. hundred dollars commonweal tit's paper, the price of a grey mare purchased by While from Clarke, whilst she belonged to Green.

The bill sets out the contract of purchase, with all the concomitant circumstances, and alleges every thing necessary, to shew that the complainant ought to be releived, arid the contract cancelled, and the testimony in the cause goes satisfactorily to prove aad establish,all the material facts alleged in the biVk,

*391
      *Turner*for plaintiff.

Instead, therefore of dismissing the bill, the court below, should have pronounced a decree for relief m favor or the complainant;

The decree must, consequently, be reversed with cost, the cause remanded to that court, and a decree there entered in conformity to this opinion.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Internet Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter W. Buckley, III, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|/s/    Walter W. Buckley, III                                
|                                                             
|Walter W. Buckley, III Chief Executive
Officer March 15, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Prezzli BARNES, Jr., Appellant.

No. 10427.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 3, 1966.

Decided Oct. 27, 1966.

Robert E. Kneece, Columbia, S. C. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant.

Marvin L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., and Charles S. Porter, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:

In this appeal from a conviction upon a charge of interstate transportation of a stolen automobile, the defendant complains that one Mildred Braswell was compelled to testify as a Government witness over his objection that she was his common law wife. The District Judge suspended the proceedings when the objection was made to inquire, in the absence of the jury, into the relationship between the defendant and the witness. Afterwards, the Court found that there was no common law marriage; the jury was returned, and the witness testified.

We affirm.

The testimony taken in the absence of the jury disclosed that the defendant and the witness had entered into a meretricious relationship. At the time, at least one of the parties, the witness, was married, as the defendant knew. She testified that, approximately a month before the arrest, she was informed that her husband had obtained a divorce, and she stated that she had intended to enter into a ceremonial marriage with the defendant when she was certain that she was *568legally free to do so. No such marriage had been celebrated, however, and there was no testimony of any new mutual understanding between the parties or change in their relationship after the unconfirmed report of the husband’s divorce.

If it may be said that the testimony might support an inference of a common law marriage relationship between the witness and the defendant, it abundantly warrants the inference that there was none and that the relationship remained a meretricious one up to the date of the arrest and the subsequent trial.

The question of the competence of the witness, of course, was for the Court and not for the jury. Matz v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 158 F.2d 190; San Fratello v. United States, 5 Cir., 343 F.2d 711.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2      Press Release





PRESS RELEASE
March 27, 2003

                               For further information contact:
                               David M. Bradley
                               Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                               North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                               825 Central Avenue
                               Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                               515-576-7531

                    NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES
                            STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

Fort Dodge, Iowa, March 27, 2003 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Iowa, announced today that it will commence a stock repurchase program. The
program authorizes the Company to repurchase up to 6.21% or 100,000 shares of
its 1,610,880 outstanding shares of common stock during the next twelve months.
The repurchases will be made from time to time, in open market transactions, at
the discretion of management. This new program will commence immediately upon
the completion of the Company's current repurchase program which was announced
on September 27, 2002, of which 11,500 shares remain to be purchased. North
Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $403 million in assets, as of December 31,
2002, is the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of Iowa, a federally
chartered stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented institution
serving Iowa through 9 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames,
Ankeny, Perry, Burlington and Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
#### William Sdoia, Respondent, *v.*Thomas C. Cawley, Appellant.

Argued April 13, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*849
      *Salvador J. Capecelatro*for appellant.

*R. R. Colli*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
TIMOTHY RANDOLPH

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILE D

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0815

Opinion filed March 20, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Timothy Randolph, pro se , Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
#### E. HOETER, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER FORSYTHE, and FAAULITO FORSYTHE, Defendants

No. 11-1927

District Court #1 American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

Date unknown

HARRY P. WOOD, *Chief Judge,*and LUTU, *Associate Judge*

JUDGMENT

This cause having come on to be heard before Judges Wood and Lutu at 9:30 a.m., 5 July 1927 at the District Court Room in Fagatogo and

The defendants having admitted all the material allegations of the complaint,

It is accordingly found:—

1. That on the 2nd day of July 1927 the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $4,450.00, the same being the unpaid balance of principal and interest on a promissory note made by said defendants on 1 December 1926 in the principal amount of $4,800.00.

2. That the defendants have failed to pay the installment of interest due on 1 July 1927..

3. That according to the tenor of said note the whole amount of principal and interest thereof then become due.

4. That said note was secured by a mortgage dated 1 December 1926 made by the defendants to the plaintiff— and that this mortgage covered:

A. The lease of the defendant’s store premises leased from Ho-Ching.

*9B. All the stock in trade, fountain and fixtures of said store.

C. All accounts receivable of the defendant A. Forsythe.

D. In the event that the foregoing assets were not sufficient to secure the amount due on said note, then the defendants to lease to the plaintiff the house of defendant Faaulito Forsythe, for a period not over 40 years at $30 per month for the time necessary to pay the balance found due to the plaintiff from the defendants.

5. That the assets of the said A. Forsythe were appraised as follows:

> A. Ho-Ching Lease $ 250.00

> B. Stock in trade, fixtures & fountain 1,910.15

> C. Accounts receivable 1,500.00

> $3,660.15

6. Balance due to the plaintiff by the defendants $789.85.

IT IS ACCORDINGLY ADJUDGED AND DECREED

1. That the assets of the said A. Forsythe be immediately transferred to the plaintiff Hoeter as follows:—

A. Ho Ching lease.

B. Stock in trade, fixtures and fountain in A. Forsythe’s store.

C. All accounts receivable of A. Forsythe.

2. That beginning the 1st day of October 1927 the defendant Faaulito Forsythe lease the premises described in said mortgage of 1 December 1926 to the plaintiff for the term of two years and three months at a monthly rent of $30.00 to be applied by the plaintiff on the balance due to him by the defendants, to wit $789.85.