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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 2000 AND FROM THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                728,993
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       2,781,256
<ALLOWANCES>                           88,470
<INVENTORY>                         4,489,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    8,062,659
<PP&E>                              4,050,052
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     13,714,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,276,889
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                              105,603
<OTHER-SE>                          6,747,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       13,714,017
<SALES>                            14,323,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   14,323,644
<CGS>                               9,147,385
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       4,519,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      (61,943)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    415,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       303,100
<INCOME-TAX>                          116,140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   186,960
<DISCONTINUED>                       (107,121)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           66,422
<EPS-BASIC>                               .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .02



</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 6 

To reform America’s broken immigration system. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

BROWN of Ohio, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BENNET, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mrs. 

BOXER, and Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reform America’s broken immigration system. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reform America’s Bro5 ken Immigration System Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE. 

7 It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should— 

8 (1) fulfill and strengthen our Nation’s commit9 ments regarding border security; 

10 (2) pass legislation to support our national and 

11 economic security, such as the DREAM Act, which 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 6 IS

1 would allow students who came to America before 

2 turning 16 to earn citizenship by attending college 

3 or joining the armed forces, and AgJobs, which 

4 would help to ensure a stable and legal agricultural 

5 workforce and protect the sustainability of the 

6 American agricultural industry; 

7 (3) implement a rational legal immigration sys8 tem to ensure that the best and brightest minds of 

9 the world can come to the United States and create 

10 jobs for Americans while, at the same time, safe11 guarding the rights and wages of American workers; 

12 (4) require all United States workers to obtain 

13 secure, tamper-proof identification to prevent em14 ployers from hiring people here illegally, and tough15 en penalties on employers who break labor and im16 migration laws; 

17 (5) hold people accountable who are currently 

18 here illegally by requiring them to either earn legal 

19 status through a series of penalties, sanctions, and 

20 requirements, or face immediate deportation; and 

21 (6) adopt practical and fair immigration re22 forms to help ensure that families are able to be to23 gether. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### Elston *v.*The State.

*Violating Criminal Contract.*

(Decided Feb. 6, 1908.

*45*South. 667.)

*False*Pretense; *Criminal Contract.*— A contract made, under section 4751, by one convicted of a misdemeanor with the person who confesses with him for the fine and cost thereof, which provides that such person shall work for his surety until the fine and costs are paid “over and above the amount advanced to him for living expenses,” is void, the advances being a mere debt for the payment of which involuntary servitude is prohibited.

Appeal from Talladega City Court.

Heard before Hon. G. K. Miller.

John Elston was convicted of failing to perform a written contract with his surety, who had confessed judgment with him, under Code 1896, § 4571, and appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Graves Embry and C. C. Whitson, for appellant.

Under the contract on which the prosecution is based- no conviction could he had in this *case.*— Smith *v. The State,*82 Ala. 40; *Davis v. The State,*95 Ala. 9; *Winslow The State,*97 Ala. 68.

*63Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

TYSON, C. J.

The defendant was tried and convicted for failure to perform a written' contract with his surety, who had confessed judgment with him for the fine and costs which had been adjudged against him upon conviction for misdemeanor. Section 4751 of the Code of 1896. One of the stipulations of this contract is that the defendant “is to receive out of his earnings a sufficient sum to reasonably enable him to live, and that this contract is to be in force and effect until the aforesaid fine and costs is paid in full over and above the amount advanced to.him for living expenses.” It appears undisputedly from the testimony that defendant had, by his services under the contract, more than satisfied the amount of the fine and costs, but that he had not performed enough service to satisfy the advances made to him and the fine and costs. The point is made that the advances are a mere debt, and involuntary servitude cannot be exacted of him for their repayment; that to extend the obligation of the contract beyond the payment of the fine and costs to the inclusion of advances would violate that provision of the Constitution inhibiting imprisonment for debt. Defendant’s liability for advances to enable him to live while performing services under the contract is just as much a debt as would be his lability for advances for any other purpose. The point is well taken, and is fully sustained by the following cases: *Ex parte Davis,*95 Ala. 9, 16, 11 South. 308; *Wynn*v. *State,*82 Ala. 55, 2 South. 630; *Smith v. State,*82 Ala. 40, 2 South. 629; *Winslow v. State,*97 Ala. 68, 12 South. 423. Indeed, upon the authority of *Ex parte Davis, supra,*the contract was void, and would not support the prosecution.

*64The case having been tried by the presiding judge without a jury, the judgment of conviction will be reversed, and one will be here rendered discharging defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Dowdell, Anderson, and McClellan, JJ., concur.
# C_2019423EN.01002702.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 2 October 2019 – TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

(Case C-729/19)

(2019/C 423/34)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TKF

Defendant: Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 75(2) of the Maintenance Regulation EC 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as applying only to ‘decisions’ which were given in States that were member states of the EU at the time those decisions were made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 75(2) of the Maintenance Regulation EC 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as applying only to ‘decisions’ which were given in States that were member states of the EU at the time those decisions were made?

| 2. | Bearing in mind that Poland is now a Member State of the European Union which is bound by the Hague Protocol, are maintenance decisions made by a Court in Poland in 1999 and 2003, that is, prior to Poland becoming a member state of the European Union, now capable of being registered and enforced in another EU Member State pursuant to any part of EC Regulation 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation),and in particular:






  (a) | pursuant to Article 75(3) and Article 56 of the Maintenance regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Bearing in mind that Poland is now a Member State of the European Union which is bound by the Hague Protocol, are maintenance decisions made by a Court in Poland in 1999 and 2003, that is, prior to Poland becoming a member state of the European Union, now capable of being registered and enforced in another EU Member State pursuant to any part of EC Regulation 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation),and in particular:

(a)

pursuant to Article 75(3) and Article 56 of the Maintenance regulation;

| (b) | pursuant to Article 75(2) and Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

pursuant to Article 75(2) and Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation;

| (c) | pursuant to Article 75(2)(a) and Section 3 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

pursuant to Article 75(2)(a) and Section 3 of Chapter IV of the Maintenance regulation;

| (d) | pursuant to any other Articles of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

pursuant to any other Articles of the Regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009, L 7, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Louis Prichard, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kentucky Bancshares,
Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and
5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.
Date:   March 30, 2005
BY  /s/ Louis Prichard
Louis Prichard
President & Chief Executive Officer
92
92
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found on
pages F-2 and F-3 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May
31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                      810
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             3,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                              77,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                   52,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          176,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    79,461
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                              6,000,600
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            176,933
<SALES>                                  48,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         48,381
<CGS>                                    25,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           263,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       18,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (240,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (240,018) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.04)

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 3.3**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

 

**OF**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

 

**OF**

 

**WORLDGATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

 

WorldGate Communications, Inc.(the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtueof the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

 

1.                                       Thatthe Board of Directors of this Corporation adopted the following resolution toamend its Certificate of Incorporation:

 

RESOLVED, thatthe first sentence (and only the first sentence) of paragraph FOURTH of theCompany’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation be amended to readas follows:

 

“FOURTH: Theamount of total authorized capital stock of the Corporation is 93,500,000shares divided into 80,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share(the “Common Stock”), and 13,500,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.01per share (the “Preferred Stock”).”

 

The remaining sections of paragraph FOURTH, consisting of(A) COMMON STOCK, and (B) PREFERRED STOCK, will survive the amendmentin their current form.

 

2.                                       Thatat the Corporation’s annual meeting of stockholders held October 13, 2004, avote of the stockholders entitled to vote on the aforesaid amendment was takenand a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon voted in favorof the aforesaid amendment.

 

3.                                       Thatthe aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of theGeneral Corporation Law of Delaware.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theCorporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by Randall J.Gort, the Secretary of the Corporation, this 18th day of October, 2004.

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Randall J. Gort |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Randall J. Gort     |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Secretary           |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-91196 and No. 333-105231 on Form S-8 of Pacific State Bancorp of
our report, dated March 28, 2008 relating to our audit of the consolidated
financial statements, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pacific
State Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|                       |  |                    
|---------------------- |  | -------------------
|                       |  | /s/ Perry-Smith LLP
|                      
|Sacramento, California |  |                    
|March 28, 2008         |  |                    

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             365  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                      875  
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (30) 
<INVENTORY>                                          0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,236  
<PP&E>                                             696  
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (449) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,668  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,071  
<BONDS>                                            845  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             6  
<OTHER-SE>                                        (254) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,668  
<SALES>                                          2,127  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,127  
<CGS>                                                0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,070  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     22  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 22  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                        22  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04  
        


</TABLE>
# C_2019432EN.01005201.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO — (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)

(Case T-10/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark UNITED STATES SEAFOODS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United States Seafoods LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2018 (Case R 817/2018-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UNITED STATES SEAFOODS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders United States Seafoods LLC to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders United States Seafoods LLC to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.16




---



##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 1
 AGREEMENT NO. 20070105.006.S.002
  WITNESSETH
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 Now, THEREFORE
 1.)
    
    The Parties agree to revive the Agreement and to extend its term as set forth below and
agree that it shall be deemed to have been in effect continuously since its Effective Date
of April 1, 2007. The Parties further agree to ratify all past actions taken between the
above-referenced Expiration Date and the date when this Amendment is effective.
 2.)
    
    Section III  (A) Term is hereby amended to delete the parenthetical (A); change the
end date to March 31, 2009; and to add the following sentence:
  Proprietary and Confidential
  2




---



##### 



3.)
    
    Section IV is hereby amended to change the contact information for AT&Ts program
Invoice Manager to:
  4.)
    
    Section V is hereby amended to replace AT&Ts Program Representative with the
following:
  5.)
    
    Section VIII is hereby amended to change the maximum expenditure in the first sentence
to [*].
 6.)
    
    Section IX PRICING SCHEDULE is here amended to replace the Pricing table with the
following:
 Description
    
    1 - 40 FTEs
    
    
    41 - 75 FTEs
    
    
    76 - 125 FTEs
    
    
    125+ FTEsPricing effective as of 4/1/08
    
    [*] Rate
    
    
    [*] Rate
    
    
    [*] Rate
    
    
    [*] RateService Managers
    
    $
    [*]
    
    
    $
    [*]
    
    
    $
    [*]
    
    
    $
    [*]*Training [*]
    
    $
    [*]
    
    
    $
    [*]
    
    
    $
    [*]
    
    
    $
    [*]Holidays
    
    
    [*]
    
    
    
    [*]
    
    
    
    [*]
    
    
    
    [*]
 7.)
    
    Section X is hereby added and made part of this Order.
 X.
    
    Name of Affiliate Ordering Services:AT&T Operations, Inc
 8.)
    
    Attachment A  Statement of Work, Section A. Program Description is herby amended to
change Customer Services Managers (CSM) to Service Managers. All references to CSM
in this Order shall now mean Service Managers.
 9.)
    
    Attachment A  Statement of Work, Section D Staffing is hereby amended deleted and
replaced with the following:
  Proprietary and Confidential
  3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 StarTek, Inc.
    
    AT&T Services, Inc.By: /s/ A.L. Jones
    
    By: /s/ Keith ConnollyPrinted Name: A.L. Jones
    
    Printed Name: Keith ConnollyTitle: CEO
    
    Title: Vice President, Global Strategic SourcingDate: 6/27/08
    
    Date: May 30, 2008On behalf of AT&T Operations, Inc.
 Proprietary and Confidential
  4