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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            1828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1597
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8425
<PP&E>                                           10501
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           165486
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     210000
<COMMON>                                        349831
<OTHER-SE>                                    (713430)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11887
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (101730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (101730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    8401
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 162554
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     69225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered October 8, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00349
- CR
RONALD GAYLON ROSSER , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199t h Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199
- 81000
- 2015



### O RDER Before the Court are court reporter Sheri J. Vecera’s September 30, 2019 request for a short extension of time to file the reporter’s record and October 3, 2019 let ter requesting another short extension. The reporter’s record was received on October 7, 2019.
We GRANT Ms. Vecera’s requests and ORDER the reporter’s record filed as of October 7, 2019.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: October 22, 2012

TO: RICE NESHAP Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

FROM: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

SUBJECT: October 11, 2012 Meeting Regarding Proposed Amendments to the RICE 

NESHAP

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between the EPA and the attendees listed below on October 11, 2012 

to discuss the comments submitted by EnerNOC on the proposed amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines. The amendments were proposed on June 7, 2012.

ATTENDEES

Gina McCarthy, EPA Steve Fruh, EPA

Joe Goffman, EPA Stacy Angel, EPA

Joel Beauvais, EPA Rich Counihan, EnerNOC

Lora Strine, EPA David Brewster, EnerNOC

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA Don DiCristifaro, Blue Sky Environmental

Melanie King, EPA
No. 11-10042.

#### Everett *v.*Bergh, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### SHAUNPEN ZHOU Plaintiff-Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1802

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 28, 2017

Filed: January 12, 2018

Shaunpen Zhou, Pro Se

Sarah J.- Gasperini, Attorney, Jonathan C. Huckabay, James A. McKenna, Jackson *&*Lewis, Chicago, IL, Kevin James Visser, Thomas D. Wolle, Attorney, Simmons & Perrine, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

*414PER CURIAM.

Shaunpen Zhou appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action.

After careful *de novo*review, *see Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp.,*670 F.3d 844, 852 (8th Cir. 2012), we conclude that the district court’s disposition of Zhou’s claims was appropriate for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa,
EXHIBIT 34.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Management Committee

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



We have examined BMW Financial Services NA, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2014-A (except for the servicing criteria described in the following paragraph), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.



The Company has determined that the servicing criteria in Items 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv)  are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph of this report and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.



In our opinion, BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.



/s/ CohnReznick LLP



Roseland, New Jersey

March 22, 2016
Honorable Jim Weatherby 

Cow.+ Attorney 

Kerr County 

Kerrville, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3050 

Be: Chairman of the Demooratic 

Executive ccmnaittee of I[err 

county rating es clerk, 

supervisor or judge at an 

eleotion. 

M have received your letter of reoent dates requesting our opinion upon the above stated question. If the ohairman of the Demooratlo 

E*eoutive Committee of Kerr County is disqualified to rot as Clerk, supervisor or judge of an eleotion, suoh disqualifioation is by virtue of Article 2940, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas , -rJhioh reads in part as follows: 

"No one who holds an offioe or profit or trust under the United States or 

this State, or in any city or town in this State, or within thirty (30) 

days after resigning or being dismissed from any such office, except a 

notary public, or who is a oandidate for office, or who has not paid his 

poll tax, shall act as judge, clerk or supervisor of any election . . ." 

This same identioal question was passed upon by the Supreme 

Court of Texas in the case of Walker et al vs. ?dobley, 103 S.W. 490. The 

question there involved 1~~88 

"'Xas J. T. Dean disqualified from acting as presiding judge of voting precinct No. 2 in said election by reason of his being at the time the ohairman 

of the Democratic Executive Cowittee of Henderson County?" 

Justice Brown, writing for the Court in this case, disposed of 

the above question in the following words: 

"The ground of disqualificatisn urged is that the chairman of an executive 

committee of a political party is an office of the State or county. There 

is nothing in the language of tho law or the Constitution to support the 

contention. Dean was not disqualified to act as judge of the election." 
Also see Ex Parte %Iderson (Grim. App.) 102 S.7 727; 'Jallcer 

vs. Mobley (Civ, App.) 106 SW 511 Nallcer vs. Hopping, (Clv. App.) 226 S+7 

ICC. 

Ne are aware of the holding of the Ft. T?orth Court of Civil 

+pcals in the case of Priberg vs. Scurry, 33 SE (2nd) 762, wherein the 

court, in on&ruing the Mandamus Statute (kt. 3113, Revised Civil Stctutos, 

lC25), held that the positions of chairman of the Demooratic Bcccutive Committee of a county and a precinct chairman are offices *thin the meaning 

d said Article 3113. However, in vim of the holding of the Supreme Court 

cf Texas in tho Valkor vs. Koblsy case, supra, this department adhcrcr to 

i-he lnri RS construed by the Supreme Court. 

I% are enclosing herewith for your information a copy of 

Opinion PO. o-2056, written upon a related question. 

Trusting that the above answers your inquiry, ws remain 

Very truly yours 

ATTORRSY GXWPAL OF ‘iEUS 

By /s/ 3. Eurlc Davis 

D. krle DRV~Z. 

A? s i s : ..:.r' t
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION, INCOME AND CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                      660
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                            629
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F1>
<COMMON>                                             0<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                          27
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       661
<SALES>                                              0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    16
<CGS>                                                0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0<F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not applicable
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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, as of, and for the periods
presented in the Report.
 /s/ Charles D. JohnstonCharles D. JohnstonPresident & Chief Executive Officer 
November 13, 2006
  (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, as of, and for the periods
presented in the Report.
 /s/ Anthony A. ScaleseAnthony A. ScaleseChief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
November 13, 2006
 A signed original of these written statements required by section 906 have been provided
to QualMark Corporation and will be retained by QualMark Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 206 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 206

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 1998

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used from 8 o'clock 
ante meridian until 3 o'clock post meridian on April 23, 1998, for a 
ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of 
vic- 
tims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be 
carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the 
Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KYLE DYLAN MORAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-530 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 6, 2015.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly Fernandez, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, A ssistant Attorney General, Tampa, for A ppellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge. Kyle Dylan Moran appeals the summary denial of his motion file d pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Moran's mo tion alleged that he received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the pos sibility of parole for a first-degree murder that he committed when he was sixteen years old. The motion was- 2 - denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 201 2), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Mill er v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), did not apply retroactively. The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that the Miller decision applies retroactively to all juvenile offenders whose convictions

and sentences were final when Mill er was decided. Falcon v. St ate, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S151, S151 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015). Accordingly, we reverse the p ostconviction court's order summarily denying the claim. We note that the Florida Supreme Court has further held in Hor sley v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S155, S155 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015), that the proper remedy in cases involving juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconsti tutional under Miller is to apply chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida. The court conclude d that "applying chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida, to all juvenile offenders whose sent ences are unconstitutional under Miller is the remedy most faithful to th e Eighth Amendment principles established by the United States Supreme Court, to t he intent of the Florida Legislature, and to the doctrine of separation of powers." Id. at S160. The relevant provisions of chapter 2014–220 have been codified in sections 7 75.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014). A ccordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Moran's motion and remand for a resentencing proceeding consist ent with this new juvenile sentencing legislation. See Horsley, 40 Fla. L. Weekl y S155; Falcon, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S151.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

WALLACE and KHOUZA M, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

ORTHODONTIX, INC.
F/K/A EMBASSY ACQUISITION CORP.
STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                      JUNE 30,                           JUNE 30,
                                              1998              1997              1998               1997
                                           -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                        <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>         
Basic:
    Net loss applicable to common
        stock                              $   (45,840)      $  (138,708)      $  (242,026)      $  (242,025)
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
    Weighted average number of common
        shares outstanding                   5,153,983         1,300,000         3,237,638         1,300,000
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

    Basic earnings per share               $     (0.01)      $     (0.11)      $     (0.07)      $     (0.19)
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Diluted:
    Net loss applicable to common
        stock                              $   (45,840)      $  (138,708)      $  (242,026)      $  (242,025)
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
    Weighted average number of common
        shares outstanding                   5,153,983         1,300,000         3,237,638         1,300,000
    Weighted average number of common
        stock equivalents                            0 (1)             0                 0 (1)             0
                                           -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
    Weighted average number of common
        and common equivalent shares
        outstanding                          5,153,983         1,300,000         3,237,638         1,300,000
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

    Diluted earnings per share             $     (0.01)      $     (0.11)      $     (0.07)      $     (0.19)
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
</TABLE>





(1)  Potential common shares for 1998 are antidilutive and, thus are excluded
     from the calculation of earnings per share.


















                                      F-11
Exhibit








Form of Schedule I (RSU Award with Relative TSR Vesting)
Performance Condition


Performance Period:  [   ]
TSR Multiplier


	
		
	Relative TSR Percentile
	TSR Multiplier

	[  ] Percentile or Above
	100%

	[  ] Percentile
	67%

	[  ] Percentile
	33%

	Below [  ] Percentile
	0%












Relative TSR Condition


TSR Multiplier:  The applicable multiplier percentage for purposes of determining the number of vested RSUs based on the Company’s actual Relative TSR Percentile, as set forth on the table set forth above.


TSR Measurement Period:  [  ]


Relative TSR Percentile:  The Relative TSR Percentile shall be the Company’s Total Shareholder Return (as calculated below) during the TSR Measurement Period, ranked as a percentile as compared to the Total Shareholder Return of the other companies within the Peer Group.  For the avoidance of doubt, if the Relative TSR Percentile is below [  ] percentile, then all outstanding RSUs shall be forfeited and immediately cancelled.


Relative TSR Condition:  Achievement of a Relative TSR Percentile corresponding to a TSR Multiplier that is at least at threshold performance level (i.e., [  ] percentile or above).


Total Shareholder Return: means, with respect to any company, an amount (expressed as a percentage return) equal to:


(i) the sum of (x) the Ending Stock Price minus the Beginning Stock Price, plus (y) the amount of any dividends and distributions paid on a per share basis (calculated as if such dividends had been reinvested in the applicable company’s common stock on the applicable dividend date) cumulatively over the performance period,


divided by


(ii) the Beginning Stock Price.


Beginning Stock Price: means, with respect to any company, the average closing price per share of common stock for the twenty (20) trading days immediately prior to the first trading day of the TSR Measurement Period.


Ending Stock Price: means, with respect to any company, the average closing price per share of common stock for the twenty (20) trading days immediately prior to the last day of the TSR Measurement Period.













Peer Group: means the following companies:


[   ]
Any company in the Peer Group that ceases to be publicly held during the TSR Measurement Period (i) due to bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, shall remain in the Peer Group for purposes of calculation of the Relative TSR Percentile (with such company deemed to have a Total Shareholder Return of -100% and ranked at the bottom of the Peer Group) or (ii)  due to a merger, sale, acquisition, business combination or other similar event, shall be excluded from the Peer Group for purposes of calculation of the Relative TSR Percentile.