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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended November 30, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference of such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                         255,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,936,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,127,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      22,580,430
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,898,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,535,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,882,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,535,048
<SALES>                                     12,982,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,982,098
<CGS>                                       10,272,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,272,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             884,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (359,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (359,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (359,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 11461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6018]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 18, 2009 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 11461]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2009-16 of March 11, 
                2009

                
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs 
                Related To the Continuing Conflict In Pakistan

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                the laws of the United States, including section 
                2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
                1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I 
                hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the 
                Act, that it is important to the national interest to 
                furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to 
                exceed $8 million from the United States Emergency 
                Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose 
                of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration 
                needs, including by contributions to international, 
                governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and 
                payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of 
                Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department 
                of State.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, March 11, 2009

[FR Doc. E9-6018
Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
Order entered January 15, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01237-CR

JOHN CLOUD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F93-61603-N

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the State’s motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief. We 

ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                  PRIDE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                          ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATIONS S-X



The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial  statements  for the year ended November 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 dec-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-01-1997
<CASH>                                         85,065
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,039,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                   80,486
<INVENTORY>                                    1,248,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         33,102,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,220,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,087,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,654,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,087,217
<SALES>                                        15,500,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,485,050
<CGS>                                          14,368,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,368,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,209,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,464,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,464,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,464,724)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.24)
        


</TABLE>
Michael BURNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105533

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: August 14, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Emily Danker-Feldman, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*901Michael Burns ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment, after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of the class D felony of endangering a corrections employee, in violation of Section 565.085 (RSMo. 2000 ). Movant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment to be served consecutive to the time he was already serving at the time of the offense. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal in *State v. Burns*, 439 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
CHARLESTON.

#### W. S. Simmons *v.*Frank M. Simmons.

Submitted September 11, 1923.

Decided September 18, 1923.

Former Case Controlling.

This case is governed hy the principles of law announced in the opinion this day handed down in the case of *TV. 8. Simmons*v. *T. JR. Simmons.*

Certified from Circuit Court, Roane County.

Action by W. S. Simmons against Frank M. Simmons. A demurrer to the declaration as to the common counts was overruled and sustained as to the special counts, and questions thereon certified.

*Affirmed.*

*Thos. P. Ryan*and *S. P. Bell,*for plaintiff.

*Harper & Baker,*for defendant.

Litz, Judge:

This is an action in assumpsit for the recovery of damages on account of the alleged breach of covenant of special warranty of title in a deed, dated November 1st, 1902, from defendant to plaintiff conveying to the plaintiff, in consideration of $2500.00, a tract of land containing 225 acres more or less, situate in Roane county, West Virginia; on the ground that plaintiff has been evicted .from the land by superior, independent title.

The plaintiff’s declaration contains the common counts and a special count, setting up the special covenant and its alleged breach.

The action of the circuit court overruling the demurrer to the common counts and sustaining it to the special count is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
ex10-17.htm


    Exhibit
10.17

    


    CAMERON
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

    EIGHTH
AMENDMENT

    TO
THE

    2005
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

    


    


    


    WHEREAS, CAMERON INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN (the “Plan”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend
the Plan in certain respects:

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be
amended as follows, effective February 18, 2010:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
               The
      number “24,574,350” shall be substituted for the number “23,804,100” in
      the first sentence of Section 3.1 of the
Plan.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.  

            	
              The
      words “or special circumstances determined by the Committee including the
      achievement of performance objectives,” shall be deleted from Sections 5.5
      and 7.4 of the Plan.

            


    

    


    
      	
              3.  

            	
              As
      amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
      reaffirmed.

            


    

    


    


    


                     APPROVED:

    


                    /s/ William C.
Lemmer                               


                     William C.
Lemmer

                     Senior Vice
President, General Counsel

                          and
Secretary

    


    Date:  February 18,
2010
CHAMBERS v. The MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.

147PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2019

John F. Bloss, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Chambers, Christopher

Barry L. Kramer, Attorney at Law, for Chambers, Christopher

Philip J. Mohr, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, et al.

Brent Fancher Powell, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, et al.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

Carol L. Brooke, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

Jack Holtzman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

Clermont F. Ripley, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

William R. Corbett, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

Deborah Goldstein, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for N.C. Justice Center, et al.

Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel Wilkes, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Matt Burke, Solicitor General Fellow, for State of North Carolina.

Linwood Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for North Carolina Healthcare Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2019 by North Carolina Healthcare Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of July 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
#### Rosalind T. Spodek, Also Known as Roslyn Spodek, Appellant, v Park Property Development Associates, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 109]

In an action to recover on a note, the plaintiff appeals from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated December 9, 1999, as denied her application for an award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered February 17, 2000, as failed to award her prejudgment interest at the statutory rate.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

*468Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the order dated December 9, 1999, is vacated, the application is granted, the plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate, to be calculated in accordance herewith, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the order did not decide a motion made on notice, and therefore is not appealable as of right *(see,*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). The issues raised with respect to the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover on a note. In a prior determination, this Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment *(see, Spodek v Park Prop. Dev. Assocs.,*263 AD2d 478). However, in the judgment appealed from, entered upon that determination, the Supreme Court failed to award the plaintiff prejudgment interest at the statutory rate on all unpaid moneys from the date each payment was due *(see,*CPLR 5001, 5004). We reverse.

Statutory interest is to be computed “from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed” (CPLR 5001 [b]). “Where such damages were incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date” (CPLR 5001 [b]). An award of interest is founded on the theory that there has been a deprivation of the use of money or its equivalent, and that an award of interest will make the aggrieved party whole; it is not to provide a windfall *(see, 155 Henry Owners Corp. v Lovlyn Realty Co.,*231 AD2d 559; *Kaiser v Fishman,*187 AD2d 623, 627; 36 NY Jur 2d, Damages, §§ 117-119). Interest is “simply the cost of having the use of another person’s money for a specified period * * * [and] is intended to indemnify successful plaintiffs ‘for the nonpayment of what is due to them’ ” *(Love v State of New York,*78 NY2d 540, 544; *see also, Kaiser v Fishman, supra).*Here, to make the plaintiff whole, and to avoid a windfall to the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date each payment became due under the terms of the note *(see,*CPLR 5001, 5004; *Matter of Sirotta,*106 AD2d 507; *Volkswagen Bristol Motors v Daimler-Benz of N. Am.,*46 AD2d 644). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         With reference to the Annual Report of Redwood Empire Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Patrick W. Kilkenny, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code 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, 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/ Patrick W. Kilkenny
                                        Patrick W. Kilkenny
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

March 1, 2004
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1865 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 108 ) IV-K-(B)- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:17

PM Sheet 108of 198P. 2 

### ENERGYAN D ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ,INC . 1655 NORT

HFOR T MYE RDRIV EARLINGTON

,VIRGINI

A 2220 9703/528-190 0

Augus t 27 , 198 6 IV-K-(B)= 3

Mr . Rober t Pahel-Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h(MD-12 ) U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Researc hTriangl e Park , NC 2771 1 Subject : EP

AContrac t No . 68-02-4202 , Wor k Assignmen t No . 1 5 Annualize dIndustria l Natura l Ga s Price s Dea r Robert : Enclose dar e annualize dindustria l natura l ga s price s byFedera l region . Thes e fue l price s ar e consisten t wit h"Regiona l Projection s o f Industria l Fue l Prices" , EEA , Augus t 14 , 1986 . Not e a correctio nt o thi s report ; Tabl e A-10 , 2005 , 6 . Southwest : 5.36 , no t 5.67 . Cal l m e i f yo u hav e an yquestions .

Enclosure s cc : Dr . A . Weh e TH:ds s

MANAGEMEN T / ECONOMIC S /

ENGINEERING

# 1 P. 3

ANNUALIZE D INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GA S PRICES 3

(198 5 $/MMBtu )

Federa l regio n LOWOI L PRICE S

Carriag e marke t Non-carriag e

marke t Flexibl e Rigi dFlexibl e Rigi d HIG H OI L PRICE S Carriag e Non-carriag e Marke t Marke t 1 . Ne wEngland 3.1 3 3.3 0 4.0 6 4.1 7 4.3 8 5.3 9 2 . Ne wYork / Ne wJerse y 3.2 1 3.2 7 4.2 1 4.0 4 4.5 3 5.4 0 3 . Middl e Atlanti c 3.0 6 3.2 1 3.8 4 3.8 6 4.2 6 5.0 0 4 . Sout hAtlanti c 3.0 1 3.1 4 3.8 9 3.8 8 4.0 8 4.8 0 5 . Midwes t 3.1 7 3.2 2 3.7 8 3.7 7 4.3 2 4.8 2 6 . Southwes t 2.8 0 2.8 5 2.8 0 2.8 5 3.6 4 3.6 4 7 . Centra l 3.0 3 3.1 0 3.5 3 3.5 1 4.0 6 4.3 6 8 . Nort hCentra l 3.0 6 3.0 6 3.1 4 3.1 4 3.9 7 3.7 2 9 . Wes t 3.1 1 3.1 1 3.4 7 3.3 6 4.2 1 4.3 4 10 . Northwes t 3.0 0 2.9 7 3.2 5 3.2 4 3.7 6 4.0 0

3 Te npercen t discoun t rate . Fiftee nyea r perio dbeginnin g i n1987 . Energyan d Environmenta l Analysis , Inc . - Summe r 1986 .
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOUSTAFA EL SAYED HARIDY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72497

Agency No. A095-618-096

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Moustafa El Sayed Haridy, a native of Saudi Arabia and citizen of Egypt,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

his motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72497

denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. Mohammed

v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for

review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Haridy’s motion to reopen

because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s conduct.

See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when “the performance of counsel was so

inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings” (internal

quotation marks omitted)). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 10.48



 Exhibit 10.48 
 Dominion Resources, Inc. 
 Non-Employee
Directors’ Annual Compensation 
 As of December 31, 2009 
  

			
	 Annual Retainer
	  	 Amount

	 Service as Director
	  	$150,000 ($60,000 cash; $90,000 stock)
	 Service as Audit Committee or Compensation, Governance and Nominating Committee Chair
	  	$15,000
	 Service as Finance and Risk Oversight Committee Chair
	  	$7,500
		
	 Meeting Fees
	  	
	 Board meetings
	  	$2,000 per meeting
	 Committee meetings
	  	$2,000 per meeting
#### Dorfman Organization, Ltd., Plaintiff, v Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company et al., Appellants. Dorfman Organization et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 573]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about December 27, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the brief, granted counterclaim defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third through sixth counterclaims, and denied counterclaim plaintiffs’ motion to amend the answer to assert a seventh counterclaim, for negligent misrepresentation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Counterclaim defendants, as the insurance broker for the proposed insured, owed the insured, not counterclaim plaintiff insurers, a duty of care *(see, American Motorists Ins. Co. v Salvatore,*102 AD2d 342, 345). In any event, the brokers did not possess knowledge superior to that of the insurers, and the brokers’ assertion that the new account would be profitable and would double the brokers’ account with the insurers was nonactionable opinion or mere puffery *(see, Jacobs v Lewis,*261 AD2d 127). The insurers’ failure to conduct their own thorough investigation into the financial stability of the proposed insured further precludes their claim of detrimental reliance on the purportedly inadequate investigation by the brokers *(see, id.).*Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2








PACIFIC
STATE BANCORP





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific State Bancorp (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements and 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











Date:  August
14, 2009


/S/ Justin R.
Garner


Justin R.
Garner


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer