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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,945
<INVENTORY>                                      1,266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,492
<PP&E>                                          33,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,928)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,179<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,319
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,748
<SALES>                                         62,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,577
<CGS>                                           34,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,673<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,635<F3>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (67,021)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (67,021)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,021)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.86)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $83.9 MILLION OF INDEBTEDNESS UNDER THE COMPANY'S SENIOR CREDIT
FACILITY WHICH WAS CLASSIFIED AS A CURRENT LIABILITY DURING THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 DUE TO EVENTS OF DEFAULT UNDER THE SENIOR CREDIT
FACILITY.
<F2>INCLUDES $28.2 MILLION WRITEDOWN OF GOODWILL RECORDED DURING THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
<F3>INCLUDES $14.4 MILLION NONRECURRING PROVISION IN CONNECTION WITH CHANGES IN THE
COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE COLLECTION STRATEGY AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
RESERVE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY DURING THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Randy Rodriguez, Petitioner, v Charles H. Solomon et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 862]

— The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BRIAN CHRISTOPHER MCCLASKEY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 63 MAL 2016** 

**P etition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

ORDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**

DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 10.29



Exhibit 10.29




AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment, dated as of _______ __, 2020 (the "Amendment") is by and between General Cannabis Corp. (the "Company") and Steve Gutterman (the "Employee").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of December 13, 2019 with respect to Employee's services as Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the "Employment Agreement");

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms of Section 20 of the Employment Agreement; and

WHEREAS, capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is mutually acknowledged, the Company and the Employee agree as follows:

1.

Amendment of Section 3(a).  The Employment Agreement shall be amended to reduce the Base Salary to $212,500, such that Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

“Base Salary.  Employee’s base salary shall be $212,500 per annum and shall be subject to increase from time to time in the Board’s sole discretion (the “Base Salary”), which salary shall be paid by the Company in regular installments in accordance with the Company’s general payroll practices (in effect from time to time).”

2.

Terms of Agreement; Conflicting Terms.  Except as expressly modified hereby, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.  In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the Employment Agreement and this Amendment, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Amendment shall govern and control.

3.

Governing Law.  This Amendment is to be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of Colorado without giving effect to any choice of law rule that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the internal laws of the State of Colorado to the rights and duties of the parties.

4.

Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be enforceable against the party actually executing such counterpart, and which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

5.

Entire Agreement.  This Amendment and the Employment Agreement constitute the entire and exclusive agreement between the parties with respect to this subject matter.  All previous discussions and agreements with respect to this subject matter are superseded by the Employment Agreement and this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.




			
	 
	COMPANY


	 
	 

	 
	General Cannabis Corp.


	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:

	 

	 
	Name:

	 

	 
	Title:

	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	EMPLOYEE


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Name:

	Steve Gutterman
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-10588

Janet Glaser,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

William C. Isbell,

Appellant,

VERSUS

Just Brakes Corporation, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

Jenkens & Gilchrist, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:92-CV-2470-P)

March 27, 1997

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

2 PER CURIAM: 1

Appellants challenge three orders of the district court: (1)

an order of October 24, 1994, denying the plaintiff’s motion to

enforce a settlement agreem ent and sanction the defendants and

their lawyers under Rule 11, and awarding opposing counsel, Robert

Sheeder, Brian Easley, and Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C. (“attorneys”),

the costs incur red in responding to the motion; (2) an order of

January 23, 1995, denying the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the

prior order; and, (3) an order of April 16, 1996, which specified

the amount owed in attorney’s fees. Appellants filed their notice

of appeal on May 16, 1996.

Although an order awarding attorney’s fees is not final (and

therefore not appealable) until an amount is specif ied, this

tolling does not affect the finality of the remainder of a court’s

order. S ee Budinich v. Be cton Dickinson & Co. , 486 U.S. 196

(1988). With regard to the 1994 and 1995 orders, appellants did

not file their notice of appeal until well after the 30-day period

mandated by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), and therefore

this court is without jurisdiction to review the district court’s

decisions relating to the enforceme nt of the parties’ settlement

agreement. Funderburk v. Wainwright , 484 F.2d 681, 681 (5th Cir.

1973).3

However, the portion of the 1994 order granting the attorneys

their fees did not become final until April 16, 1996, and thus the

notice of appeal was timely as to that issue. See Hay v. City of

Irving , 893 F.2d 796, 800 (5th Cir. 1990). We review all aspects

of a Rule 11 determination for an abuse of discretion. Krim v.

BancTexas Group, Inc., 99 F.3d 775, 777 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)).

After denying a Rule 11 motion, a district court “may” award

the other party “ the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees

incurred in . . . opposing the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(c)(1)(A). Having reviewed the briefs and the relevant portions

of the record, we cannot say that the order directing the

plaintiff’s counsel to pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees was an abuse

of the court’s discretion.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order awarding

attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the plaintiff’s motion is

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 52006PC0457 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006PC0457

**Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, as regards the derogation on egg washing /* COM/2006/0457 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 14.8.2006

COM(2006) 457 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, as regards the derogation on egg washing

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs lays down the criteria for the derogation enabling packing centres to continue to wash eggs until 31 December 2006.

In the framework of simplification of the agricultural legislation, a new Council Regulation replacing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 was adopted by the Council on 19 June 2006 and enters into force on 1 July 2007. Pending the application of the new Council Regulation on marketing standards for eggs, the temporary derogation for egg washing foreseen until 31 December 2006 in Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 should be extended until 1 July 2007.

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, as regards the derogation on egg washing

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in eggs[1], and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) Article 6(4) of Council Regulation No 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs[2] lays down the criteria for the derogation enabling packing centres to continue to wash eggs until 31 December 2006.

(2) Such derogation has so far been granted to nine packing centres in Sweden and one in the Netherlands. Pending the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006 of 19 June 2006 on marketing standards for eggs[3] on 1 July 2007, the transitional period for egg washing should be extended until that date.

(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, the date “31 December 2006” is replaced by the date “30 June 2007”.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the Council

The President[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

[1] OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 679/2006. (OJ L 119, 4.5.2006, p. 1).

[2] OJ L 173, 6.7.1990, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1039/2005 (OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 1).

[3] OJ L 186, 7.7.2006, p. 1.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1974

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income

any Alaska Permanent Fund dividend received by a child under age 14.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 23, 1998

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude

from gross income any Alaska Permanent Fund dividend

received by a child under age 14.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR ALASKA PERMA4 NENT FUND DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY CHIL5 DREN UNDER AGE 14.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap7 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to

8 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended

9 by redesignating section 138 as section 139 and by insert10 ing after section 137 the following new section:
2

•S 1974 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 138. ALASKA PERMANENT DIVIDENDS TO CHILDREN

2 UNDER AGE 14.

3 ‘‘Gross income shall not include any Alaska Perma4 nent Fund dividend received by an individual during a tax5 able year if the individual has not attained age 14 before

6 the close of the taxable year.’’

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

8 (1) Section 1(g)(7)(A)(i) of the Internal Reve9 nue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘(includ10 ing Alaska permanent fund dividends)’’.

11 (2) The table of sections for part III of sub12 chapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by

13 striking the item relating to section 138 and insert14 ing:

‘‘Sec. 138. Alaska Permanent Fund dividends to children under

age 14.

‘‘Sec. 139. Cross references to other Acts.’’

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

17 December 31, 1997.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00127

- CR

The STATE of Texas

, Appellant

v.

Bryan Leonel Rodriguez MEJIA

, Appellee

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10372CR

Honorable Tully Shahan , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s order on

the State of Texas’s motion to amend the information and Bryan Leonel Rodriguez Mejia ’s motion

to dismiss the original complaint is REVERSED, and the cause is REMAND ED to the trial court

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SIGNED April 26 , 2023.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medallion Financial Corp. (the
Company) for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Larry D. Hall        
|Larry D. Hall            
|Senior Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer  

Date: November 5, 2009



Page 64 of 64
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

HEALTHCARE.COM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
(UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                                           MARCH 31,
                                                                                                 -----------------------------
                                                                                                    2001                2000
                                                                                                 ---------           ---------
<S>                                                                                              <C>                 <C>
Net earnings attributable to common shareholders                                                 $     511           $     201
                                                                                                 =========           =========
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                                                                                28,219              25,895
                                                                                                 =========           =========

Basic net earnings per common share                                                              $    0.02           $    0.01
                                                                                                 =========           =========
Shares used in diluted net earnings per
  share calculation:
  Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding                                                                              28,219              25,895

  Additional shares assumed outstanding
    from dilutive stock options and warrants
    used in diluted earnings per share
    calculation                                                                                         14               1,326
                                                                                                 ---------           ---------
                                                                                                    28,233              27,221
                                                                                                 =========           =========

Diluted net earnings per common share                                                            $    0.02           $    0.01
                                                                                                 =========           =========
</TABLE>
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DAVID GRIMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01764-SB

ORDER

BECKERMAN, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff’s counsel moves for attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,929.02, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b). This figure represents roughly 23 percent of Plaintiff’s retroactive benefits. 

Defendant does not object to Plaintiff’s counsel’s request and “defers to the Court’s assessment,” 

but Defendant does note that the request produces a “high hourly rate . . . of $1,108.36 per hour.”

(ECF No. 31 at 2.)

The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the fee request, and the supporting 

materials, including the award of benefits, counsel’s fee agreement, and the itemization of 

counsel’s hours and services. Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 

807 (2002), the Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable. See also Quinn v. Comm’r, 
PAGE 2 – ORDER

No. 12-1133-SI, 2013 WL 5786988, at *4 (D. Or. Oct. 28, 2013) (approving de facto hourly rate 

of $1,240 for attorney time).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 30).

Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to $20,929.02 in § 406(b) fees, representing roughly 23 percent of 

Plaintiff’s retroactive benefits recovery. When issuing the § 406(b) check for payment to 

Plaintiff’s counsel, the Commissioner is directed to subtract the $3,470.77 previously awarded 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act and send Plaintiff’s counsel the balance of $17,458.25, 

less any applicable administrative assessment that is allowed by statute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2018.

 

STACIE F. BECKERMAN

United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          29,213
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,406
<INVENTORY>                                     47,973
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,257
<PP&E>                                         410,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                 247,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 445,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          371,704
<BONDS>                                        233,376
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,051
<OTHER-SE>                                   (203,077)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   445,054
<SALES>                                        236,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               678,622
<CGS>                                          364,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  730,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (499,421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (499,421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (31,500)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (530,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.017)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.017)


</TABLE>