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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    41
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      41
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               15
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                          26
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        41
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    11
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (5,255)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (5,255)
        

</TABLE>
OUTCOME OF WY 2007 HYDROGRAPH DISCUSSION

SPG developed three potential options:(w/o BHBF, as per TWG motion) 

1) ROD flows (MLFF) 

First SPG Vote: Option 1 vs Option 2 

• 6 SPG members vote for Option 1 

• 6 SPG members vote for Option 2 

Note: Option 2(a) was not included since option 2(a) is based on there being initial 

support for fall steady flows. 

Second SPG vote. If TWG decides in favor of Option 2 should we do them with or 

without winter fluctuations (Option 2(a))? 

• 7 SPG members are in favor of option 2(a) 

• 3 SPG members are opposed. 

Third SPG Vote: March BHBF with no additional costs for studying effects beyond 

normal monitoring 

• 3 SPG members vote in favor 

• 7 SPG members are opposed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,074
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                       220,044
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,236,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,220
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (353,307)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                235,511
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,663)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   232,908
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7324

JOSHUA ORTEL HATFIELD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT SMITH, Superintendent; MIKE EASLEY,

Attorney General, North Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-199-196-2)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 15, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Ortel Hatfield, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Ortel Hatfield seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hatfield’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Hatfield v. Smith, No. CA-199-196-2

(W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2000). 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
Exhibit 10.3


 


 


May 19, 2020


 


 


Mr. Patrick White


 


 


Re:      Amendment of
Employment Agreement


 


Dear Patrick:


 


This letter agreement
modifies your Employment Agreement, dated August 15, 2017, as amended on August 13, 2019 (the “Agreement”). In consideration
of the mutual promises contained in this letter agreement, VerifyMe, Inc. (“VRME”) and you agree as follows:


 


1.       The
Agreement’s term shall be extended until August 15, 2021; and


 


2.       The
second sentence of Section 2(a) of the Agreement, shall amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“The Term shall be automatically
renewed for successive one-year terms provided Executive provides the Chair of the Compensation Committee with notice of the end
of the Term at least 45 days before the end of the Term and provided further that neither party provides notice of non-renewal
to the other party at least 30 days before the end of the Term.”


 


3.       If
VRME has not listed on a national securities exchange by August 15, 2020, you agree to continue to defer $50,000 of your annual
salary until such time as VRME completes a capital raise of $5 million or more or until such time as the Compensation Committee
no longer deems the salary deferral necessary.


 


In all other respects,
the Agreement is ratified and confirmed.


 


	 	Sincerely yours, 
	 	 
	 	VerifyMe, Inc.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Norman Gardner 
	 	By: Norman Gardner
	 	        Chairman


 


I hereby agree to the
foregoing:


 


	/s/ Patrick White 	 
	Patrick White	 


 


 


Clinton Square, 75 S. Clinton
Ave, Suite 510 | Rochester, NY 14604


Phone:
585-736-9400 | www.verifyme.com OTCQB:VRME
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BRENDA MATTHEWS, 

 Plaintiff, 

6:16-CV-00067-YY

vs. 

ORDER

NANCY BERRYHILL, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $2,097.81 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees will be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff’s attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this _____ day of ___________________, 2017. 

_______________________________ 

Youlee Yim You 

United States Magistrate Judge 

28th February

/s/Youlee Yim You

Case 6:16-cv-00067-YY Document 28 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sabino A. Vardaro, Appellant.

*761The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the finding that the defendant violated the terms of his probation *(see,*CPL 410.70; *People v Bacchi,*112 AD2d 940). In resentencing the defendant, however, the court simply continued the defendant’s original sentence of probation, which had included a special condition of 60 days’ incarceration, and which had already been served by the defendant, and imposed a further special condition of six months’ incarceration. Thus, the sentencing court has now added to the defendant’s original sentence a condition of incarceration in excess of six months, thus rendering it illegal *(see,*Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [d]; *People v Jones,*72 AD2d 779). Therefore, we have reduced the further special condition of incarceration to a term of four months in order that the total period of incarceration will not exceed six months. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
SCWC-12-0000061

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DANA NAONE HALL,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, WILLIAM J. AILA, JR.,

in his official capacity as chairperson of the

Board of Land and Natural Resources and as the State

Historic Preservation Officer, PUAALAOKALANI AIU,

in her official capacity as administrator of the State

Historic Preservation Division, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

LORETTA J. FUDDY in her official capacity as the Director

of the Department of Health, ALVIN T. ONAKA in his official

capacity as State Registrar of Vital Statistics and

Chief of the Department of Health’s Office of Health

Status Monitoring, KAWAIAHA#O CHURCH, WILLIAM HAOLE

in his official capacity as the Chair of the Board of Trustees

and Chair of the Board of Directors of Kawaiaha#o Church,

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-12-0000061; CIV. NO. 09-1-1828)

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-12-0000061

04-JUN-2013

10:47 AM
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ.

and Circuit Judge Wilson, in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees’ application for writ

of certiorari filed on April 22, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 4, 2013.

James Kawashima, 

Michael A. Lorusso and

Tracie M. Kobayashi for

petitioners

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
THE DIAL CORPORATION
                EXHIBIT 11-COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE*
                     (000 omitted, except per share data)
<TABLE>

<CAPTION>


                                                            1996
                                                           -------
<S>                                                        <C>

PRIMARY:
    Income before cumulative effect of accounting changes  $29,912
    Cumulative effect of accounting changes
    Net Income                                             $29,912
                                                           -------

Weighted average shares outstanding                         90,974

Primary earnings per share:
    Income before cumulative effect of accounting change   $  0.33
    Cumulative effect of accounting changes
    Net Income per share                                   $  0.33
                                                           -------

FULLY DILUTED:
    Income before cumulative effect of accounting changes  $29,912
    Cumulative effect of accounting changes
    Net Income                                             $29,912
                                                           -------

Weighted average shares outstanding                         90,974
    Incremental shares under stock option plans                 42
                                                           -------
    Adjusted weighted average shares outstanding            91,016
                                                           -------

Fully diluted earnings per share:
    Income before cumulative effect of accounting changes  $  0.33
    Cumulative effect of accounting changes
    Net Income per share                                   $  0.33
                                                           -------
</TABLE>



*Per share data is not presented on a historical basis because the Company was
not  a  publicly-held company during the periods presented.  Income (loss) per
share  is  presented as pro forma information for 1996 as the Company's common
shares  were  not  publicly-traded  until  August  15, 1996.  Accordingly, the
calculation  of  income  (loss)  per  share assumes that the common shares and
common  share  equivalents  were  outstanding for the entire period presented.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NICKLOS MICHAEL KOPANON

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 843

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 18, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Vo lusia County

, James R. Clayton , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and

Allison A. Havens

, Assistant Public

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

We affirm Nicklos Michael Kopanon's judgment and sentence. However, we

remand this matter with instructions for the trial court to identify which terms of probation

Kopanon violated, and to correct a scrivener’s error that incorrectly states that K opanon2

admitted to violating his probation. See Patt v. State , 876 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA

2004) ; Brinson v. State , 866 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)

.

AFFIRMED; RAMANDED with instructions.

SAWAYA , PALMER and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7712

ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. MARTIN, Investigator, Lee Correctional

Institution; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South

Carolina Department of Corrections; WILLIAM C.

WALLACE, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-1445-2BD)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Eugene Slappy, Appellant Pro Se. George Coggin James, Sr.,

RICHARDSON, JAMES & PLAYER, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Slappy v. Martin,

No. CA-94-1445-2BD (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
Ruben L. Iñiguez 

Office of the Federal Public Defender 

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

(503) 326-2123 Telephone 

(503) 326-5524 Facsimile 

ruben_iniguez@fd.org 

Attorney for Defendant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

 v. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant.

No. 3:15‐cr‐00438‐JO

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

EXHIBIT TO MOTION TO 

REDUCE SENTENCE UNDER THE 

FIRST STEP ACT UNDER SEAL 

The defendant, Winston Shrout, through counsel, Ruben L. Iñiguez, respectfully 

moves the Court for leave to file his Exhibit A to Motion to Reduce Sentence Under The 

First Step Act (Compassionate Release) under seal because it contains personal and 

confidential information that should not be filed in the public record. 

 Respectfully submitted on May 29, 2020. 

/s/ Ruben L. Iñiguez 

Ruben L. Iñiguez 

Attorney for Defendant
**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**     In connection with the Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB    (the “Report”) of PYR Energy Corporation (the    “Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2006,    Kenneth R. Berry Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the    Company, hereby certifies 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 the    undersigned’s knowledge and belief: (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/  Kenneth    R. Berry Jr.
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN, Attorney at Law - OSB # 944644 

tim@wilbornlaw.com 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: (702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DENISE RAMIREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. I: l 5-cv-00070-AA 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Attorney fees in the amount of $15,608.48 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the 

Equal Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412( d). Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, payment of this award shall be made via check sent to Tim Wilborn's address: P.O. 

Box 370578, Las Vegas, NV 89137. In accordance with the fee assignment which Plaintiff has 

signed, payment shall be made in Tim Wilborn' s name if no debt subject to offset exists. 

DATEDthisJldayof 0~2018. 

Submitted on October 30, 2018 by: 

s/ Tim Wilborn 

Tllvf WILBORN, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page I 

United States District Court Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 203 Reference Change Senate (RCS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 203

 To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
  to authorize the transfer to State and local governments of certain 
surplus property for use for law enforcement or public safety purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 1997

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

                            February 5, 1997

Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
  to authorize the transfer to State and local governments of certain 
surplus property for use for law enforcement or public safety purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR USE FOR LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT OR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 203(p)(1) of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(p)(1)) is amended by 
striking ``required'' and all that follows through ``offenders as'' and 
inserting ``needed for use by the transferee or grantee for a law 
enforcement or public safety purpose''.
    (b) Application of Law to Prior Transfers and Conveyances.--Section 
203(p) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
(40 U.S.C. 484(p)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) Any real or related personal property transferred or conveyed 
under this subsection before the date of the enactment of this 
paragraph may, with the approval of the Attorney General, be used for a 
law enforcement or public safety purpose.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert J. Thousand, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 891]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered December 22, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. We reject that contention *(see generally People v Porter,*55 AD3d 1313 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 899 [2008]). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges to the severity of the sentence *(see id.),*the decision of the suppression court (see *People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and the factual sufficiency of *1440the plea allocution *(see People v Zimmerman,*219 AD2d 848, 848 [1995], *lv denied*88 NY2d 856 [1996]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that his plea colloquy negated the elements of manslaughter in the second degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than that charged in the indictment, and a factual colloquy thus was not required *(see id.).*Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.