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

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,080)
<INVENTORY>                                    155,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,473
<PP&E>                                         455,771
<DEPRECIATION>                               (198,075)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 521,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,123
<BONDS>                                        220,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   521,277
<SALES>                                        170,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,264
<CGS>                                          135,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,099
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,636
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,636
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
hometreass1a1ex103_7282011.htm


 


 


Exhibit 10.3
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7663

OTIS T. MADISON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00422

- HEH

- RCY )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Otis T. Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Otis T. Madison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the d ocket on May 6, 2016 . The notice of appeal was filed on December 17 , 2017

. * Because Madison failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the a ppeal. 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

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been prope rly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
**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**

|  | (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                Registrant. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |                                 |                                               |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                              |                            |                                          |
| Date: March              16, 2006 | By:                        | /s/ Gehrig              H.              White |
|                                   | Gehrig              H. White         |
|                                   | Chief              Executive Officer |

|                                   |                                 |                                      |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                              |                            |                                 |
| Date: March              16, 2006 | By:                        | /s/ Christopher              Daniels |
|                                   | Christopher              Daniels     |
|                                   | Chief              Financial Officer |
INTEGRITY APPLICATIONS LTD.


 


Number at the Registrar of Companies 513151878








	
Attn.

	  
	
Industrial Research and Development Administration

	
Date: 21.9.03


	
Office of the Chief Scientist

	
Company:4010


	
Ministry of Industry, Trade and Employment

	  
	
4 Mavo Hamatmid. P.O.B. 2197

	  
	
Jerusalem

	  





 


Dear Sir,




 



	
Reference:

	
Letter of Undertaking and Notification of commencement of Execution in the subject of: Non-Invasive Device Monitoring Level of Glucose in the Blood







 


File no.: 32793


 


We hereby inform you that we have commenced execution of the Approved Plan, in accordance with the aforementioned reference on 1/4/03.








	  	
[Signature]

	 
	  	
A.D. Integrity Applications Ltd.

	 





 



	
1.

	
We hereby declare and undertake to meet all the provisions of the Law for Encouragement of Research and Development in Industry, 5744-1984 (hereinafter: “the Law”), including:







 



	
  

	
A.

	
The obligation not to transfer to others the know-how, the rights thereof and the production rights resulting from the research and development, without the approval of the Research Committee.







 



	
  

	
B.

	
To pay royalties and submit all the reports in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Regulations of the Encouragement of Research and Development in Industry (Rate of Royalties and Rules for their Application), 5756-1986 (hereinafter: “the Royalties Regulations”) as well as with the directives of the Industrial Research and Development Administration (hereinafter: “the Administration”).







 




  





  











  






 



	
2.

	
We declare that we have read all the instructions and directives concerning financial reports required for research and development and that we shall act upon them, including whatever is related to the subject of computerized system to report hours of task allocation.







 



	
3.

	
We agree to associate this file number: 32973 to Plan: 32793 in the subject of: non-invasive device monitoring level of glucose in the blood.













	  	
(Signature]

	 
	  	
A.D. Integrity Applications Ltd.

	 





 



	
4. 

	
Additional Undertakings







 



	
  

	
A.

	
We were informed of the Royalties Amendment published in “the Regulations File 5759” dated 3.12.1996 page 110 (File 5939).







 


Pursuant to the aforesaid amendment, the research royalties shall be dollar linked, holding annual interest at libor rate.


 



	 	
B. 

	
Additional Undertakings:







 


Royalties shall be paid out of all the profits received from monitoring level of glucose in-vivo by an ultra-sonic device, measuring specific heat, measuring level of conductivity or any combination thereof, including software, algorithms and service.








	  	
(Signature]

	 
	  	
A.D. Integrity Applications Ltd.
Changes to Section IV which we just discussed

Lydia Wegman to: Laity, James A., Mancini, Dominic J. 06/02/2010 02:22 PM

Cc:

James Hemby, Richard Wayland, Nealson Watkins, Padmini Singh, 

Kevin McLean, Sara Schneeberg, Tricia Crabtree, Michael Stewart, 

Lewis Weinstock, Charlotte Bertrand, Bridgid Curry

Jim (and Dom),

Please find attached a redline version of section IV of the SO2 preamble. Our monitoring team has made 

some clarifying and editorial changes to improve the transparency of the monitoring preamble and reg 

text. There are no substantive changes. Needless to say, I wanted you to have the redline version so 

you could see what has been changed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot. 

Lydia
**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT**

             ThisAmendment to Employment Agreement is effective as of August 14, 2000 betweenWinland Electronics, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation (the “Corporation”), and W.Kirk Hankins (“Employee”).

**RECITALS**

             A.         The Corporation and Employee areparties to an Employment Agreement dated January 1, 1999 (the “EmploymentAgreement”) which provides at Section 2.1 that the Employee shall be employedas Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation.

             B.          Effective August 14, 2000, theCorporation hired Ms. Jennifer A Thompson to serve as the Corporation’s VicePresident of Financial Operations and assume the duties previously performed byEmployee in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer.

             C.          The Corporation and Employee wish toamend the Employment Agreement to clarify that Employee will no longer serve asthe Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation.

**AGREEMENT**

             NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants andagreements contained in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows:

             1.          Amendment.  The first sentence of Section 2.1 of theEmployment Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:  “During the Initial Term, Employee shall beemployed as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and/or such otherpositions to which the Board of Directors of the Corporation may appointEmployee.”

             2.          Other Terms.  Except as provided in the immediatelypreceding paragraph, all other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remainvalid and enforceable to the same extent as before this Amendment.

             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the partieshereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of theday and year first above written.
|   | WINLAND  ELECTRONICS, INC.                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                             |
|   | By  /s/ Lorin E. Krueger                    |
|   |    Lorin E. Krueger, President and COO |
|   |                                             |
|   |                                             |
|   | /s/  W. Kirk Hankins                             |
|   | W.  Kirk Hankins                                 |
1 DENY and Opinion Filed December 18, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01292-CV IN RE RODNEY J. MCG AFFEY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1-10-582 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is relator’s October 23, 2019 petition for wri t of mandamus, in which he asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to transfervenue of a suit affecting the parentchild relationship. We also re quested and received a response from real party in interest, Ashleigh Herrera. Entitlement to mandamus relief r equires relator to show both th at a trial judge has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellat e remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After re viewing the petition and the mandamus record, as well as the r esponse, we conclude relator h as not shown he is entitled to the relief requested.–2– Accordingly, we deny relator’s p etition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relat or is not entitled to the relief sought).

191292F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1314 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the definition of spouse 

and surviving spouse to include all individuals lawfully married, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2023 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the definition of spouse and surviving spouse to include all individuals lawfully married, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF SPOUSE 

4 AND SURVIVING SPOUSE FOR DEPARTMENT 

5 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO INCLUDE ALL IN6 DIVIDUALS LAWFULLY MARRIED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101 of title 38, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1314 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘of the oppo2 site sex who was the spouse of a veteran’’ and in3 serting ‘‘who was lawfully married to a veteran, in4 cluding a marriage between two persons of the same 

5 sex,’’; and 

6 (2) in paragraph (31), by striking ‘‘of the oppo7 site sex’’. 

8 (b) MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS.—The Sec9 retary of Veterans Affairs shall update all rules and regu10 lations of the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure 

11 compliance with— 

12 (1) the amendments made by subsection (a); 

13 and 

14 (2) section 7 of title 1, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Matthew BARLOW, Appellant, v. Jilla BARLOW, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-859

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robin R. LANE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLC, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
----

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-267/05)

(2005/C 229/63)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Elisabeth De Smedt, resident in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERIC LAMONT WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-99-633, CA-01-4012-6-20)

Submitted: April 29, 2003 Decided: May 13, 2003

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Lamont Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III,

Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Lamont Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
| 200 Witmer Road  -  P.O. Box 1015  -  Horsham, PA  19044-8015 **GMAC****GMAC****Commercial Mortgage******Annual Statement as to Compliance For the Year Ended December 31, 2004***********JPM Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp******Series 2004-LN2***Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction, I hereby attest that: i.A review of the activities of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer during the period, and of its performance under this Subservicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision. ii.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation as, Servicer, has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period. iii.GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, has received no notice regarding qualifications, or challenging the status the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper-Tier REMIC, as a REMIC from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body. GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION By: /s/  Brian T. Stauffer Brian T. Stauffer Title:   Senior Vice President Date:   February 20, 2005 **** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32

****

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

                In connection with the Quarterly Report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endingDecember 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of 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,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 resultof operations of the Company.

/s/ Hubert A. J. WhyteHubert A. J. WhytePresident and Chief Executive Officer

February 4, 2004

/s/ John F. McGrath, Jr.John F. McGrath, Jr.Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

February 4, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 99.2 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCEPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-32 (the Trust) I, Nancy H. Forte, a duly elected and acting officer of Citibank, N.A. (Indenture Trustee),
do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that: 1. I have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the application of
trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section
6.06 of the Indenture pursuant to which the Trusts notes were issued during the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004 (the Relevant Year); and 2. Based upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance, dated March 15, 2005,
prepared by the Ernst & Young LLP substantially in accordance with Section 4.05 of the Expense and
Indemnity Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the application of trust money collected by the
Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture was
performed in accordance with the terms of the Indenture throughout the Relevant Year. CITIBANK, N.A., as Indenture TrusteeBy:
    
    /s/ Nancy H. ForteName: Nancy H. ForteTitle: Assistant Vice PresidentDate:
    
    March 29, 2005
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Appellant, v. Mark BANNER, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-556

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.