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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                        2,513,629
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,386,303
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        36,800,000
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                41,082,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    39,469,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  41,082,157
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              15,594,871
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 7,050,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              8,202,249
<LOSS-PROVISION>              4,797,429
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (4,306,925)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0


</TABLE>
[No. 10669.

Department Two.

January 7, 1913.]

#### M. A. Sherman, *Respondent,*v. E. Pittwood, Appellant.1

Appeal — Review—Findings. Findings in favor of the plaintiff upon conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, when supported by evidence, and there was not such preponderance in defendant’s favor as to entitle him to a dismissal.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Black, J., entered October 31, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action in tort, after a trial to the court.

Affirmed.

*Morrill, Chester*& *Shuse,*for appellant.

*Voorhees & Canfield*and *John Pattison,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 128 Pac. 1048.

Morris, J.

Appellant is a dentist, and while he was doing some work upon respondent’s teeth, a small emery disc that he was using in shaping and grinding the teeth broke, and cut into and injured respondent’s tongue. Answering respondent’s claim of negligence in not taking proper precautions to prevent the injury complained of, appellant contended that he was using due care; that the disc was of standard make, and was being used in the manner employed by skilled dentists when respondent suddenly jerked his head, and his tongue coming in contact with the disc, broke it, and thus caused the injury complained of.

*516These contentions presented a simple question of fact to the court, who tried the case without a jury, and we can find no reason why the findings should be disturbed. There can be no question but that respondent’s evidence, if accepted by the court, was sufficient to sustain the findings, and they will be sustained, as we cannot say there was such a preponderance in appellant’s favor as to entitle him to a dismissal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mount, C. J., Fullerton, Ellis, and Main, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert P. Traversa, Chief Financial Officer of MGT Capital
Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)    the Amendment to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K(A) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012, (the “Report”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2)    the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               | By:                                                                | /s/ ROBERT P. TRAVERSA
|-------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------
|               | Robert P. Traversa                                                
|               | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|               |                                                                   
|April 30, 2013 |
#### In the Matter of Nyasia W., an Infant. Monroe County Department of Human Services, Respondent; Christine W., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[942 NYS2d 848]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Dandrea L. Ruhlmann, J.), entered October 26, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights of respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. Present — Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned President of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented herein.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joan KatzeffPresidentMay 14, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals

S an Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00328

- CV

IN RE COMMITMENT OF REYES MARES

,

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 15567 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief and for clarification regarding typographical errors in the reporter’s record. Counsel for appellant states that while reviewing the reporter’s record, he “realized a typographical error . . . appears from Volume 4, Page 58 through 174, appearing oftentimes on every page of the record in those pages.” According to appellant, the “err or appears to replace the word ‘what’ each time with the word ‘Doctor Arambula,’ who is the State’s expert in this case.” Counsel for appellant states that he and counsel for the Special Prosecution Unit agree that the typographical error exists, is freque nt throughout the pages, and causes confusion reading the transcription.

We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER court reporter Mary Sasala to file an amended reporter’s record correcting the typographical error on or before October 3, 2016

. Appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after the amended reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Inter e st of L. A. M, a Child

,

Appellant

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 1 57

- CV

Appeal from the

109 th District Court

of W inkler County, Texas

(TC # 16,723 )

O R D E R

In order to protect the identity of the minor child who is the subject of this appeal, the Court

has determined on its own motion that it is necessary to identify the child by initials, L. A. M.

, and

the parents by initials as well, in all papers submitted to the Court, including letters, motions, and

briefs. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 9.8. The Court will also refer to the child and parents by their initials

in correspondence, orders, and in its opinion and judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of Ju ly

, 201 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
matechexh10_26.htm


    
      
 

     

    Exhibit 10.26

     

     

    AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT



     

    
      The following
provisions are hereby incorporated into, and are hereby made a part of, that
certain Letter Agreement dated March 4, 2003 (the “Agreement”) between Material
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Matech”) and Strategic
Advisors, Ltd. (“SA”) and such provisions are effective retroactively to the
date of the Agreement (the “Effective Date”).  All capitalized terms in
this Amendment to Agreement, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall
have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Agreement.

1.       Section 3 of the
Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

    

    
      
                  3) 
  the payment of the month fee, commencing with the January invoice, shall
  accrue until such time as Matech has raised funds, through equity or debt
  instruments, in excess of $400,000.  Upon Matech raising funds in excess
  of $400,000, 25% of any funds raised above $400,000 shall be used to pay down
  the accrued balance owed to SA.

      

    

    2.       All
other provisions of the Agreement shall remain
unchanged.


          IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to Agreement to
be duly executed and delivered as of April 9, 2008.

    
 

    
      	MATECH: 	 	 	SA:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              MATERIAL
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

              a
      Delaware corporation

            	 	 	STRATEGIC
      ADVISORS, LTD.,	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              /s/ Robert M.
      Bernstein

            	 	 	
              /s/ Bud
      Shuster 

            	 
	
              By: 
      Robert M. Bernstein 

            	 	 	
              By:  Bud
      Shuster

            	 
	
              Its: 
      Chief Executive Officer 

            	 	 	
              Its: 
      President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WALLACE T. RUTHERFORD, JR., 3:15-cv-00476-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and

Recommendation (#11) on July 8, 2015, in which she recommends

this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion (#10) for Appointment of Pro

Bono Counsel and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint (#1) without prejudice and with leave to

amend no later than October 8, 2015. The matter is now before

this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 72(b).

 - 1 ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00476-SB Document 15 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 2
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and

Recommendation (#11). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

Motion (#10) for Appointment of Pro Bono counsel with leave to

renew after the filing of any amended complaint for further

proceedings before the Magistrate Judge. The Court also

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (#1) without prejudice and with

leave to amend no later than October 9, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

 - 2 ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00476-SB Document 15 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 2
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers



 EXHIBIT 10.15 
 MICROSEMI CORPORATION 
 Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers

 Base Salaries. The current annual base salaries for the named executive officers of Microsemi Corporation (the
“Company”) are as follows: 
  

						
	 Name
	  	 Job Title
	  	Salary
	 James J. Peterson
	  	President and Chief Executive Officer	  	$	600,000
	 Ralph Brandi
	  	Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer	  	$	399,640
	 John W. Hohener
	  	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary	  	$	300,000
	 Steven G. Litchfield
	  	Executive Vice President and President — Analog Mixed Signal	  	$	290,640
	 James H. Gentile
	  	Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales	  	$	228,360

 Additional Compensation. In addition to the base salaries noted in the table above, the
named executive officers are also entitled to participate in various Company plans, and are subject to other written agreements, in each case as set forth in exhibits to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
addition, the named executive officers also receive certain perquisites and other personal benefits as disclosed in the Company’s annual proxy statement.