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

<PAGE>  
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,246                  29,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,594                   5,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,165                  53,022
<PP&E>                                         304,935                 307,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,570                 366,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,341                  47,355
<BONDS>                                        205,308                 207,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            15                      15
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,814                  94,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,570                 366,619
<SALES>                                         81,014                  72,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,014                  72,379
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,575                  69,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,639                   5,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,800                 (2,954)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,402                   (861)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,398                 (2,093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60                  (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60                  (1.40)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

T]NITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs

DAVID MARION MILINA

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-0004

Enforcement Activity No. 7601884

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND

ORDER CANCELING PREHEARING CONFERENCE CALL

This matter comes before me on the United States Coast Guard's (Coast Guard)

unopposed Motion for Withdrawal. Specifically, the Coast Guard asks that I dismiss this matter

without prejudice pursuant to 33 C.F.R. $ 20.31l. In support of the motion, the Coast Guard

advises that David Marion Milina (Respondent) voluntarily surrendered his credentials pursuant

to 46 C.F.R. $ 5.203, which provides:

$ 5.203 Voluntary surrender to avoid hearing.

(a) Any holder may surrender a credential or endorsement to the

Coast Guard in preference to appearing at a hearing.

(b) A holder voluntarily surrendering a credential or

endorsement shall sign a written statement containing the

stipulations that:

(l) The surrender is made voluntarily in preference to

appearing at a hearing;

(2) All rights to the credential or endorsement

surrendered are permanently relinquished; and,

(3) Any rights with respect to a hearing are waived.
(c) A voluntary surrender ofa credential or endorsement to an

investigating officer in preference to appearing at a hearing is

not to be accepted by an investigating officer unless the

investigating officer is convinced that the holder fully

realizes the effect of such surrender.

Upon review of the file and the foregoing authority, I will GRANT the Coast Guard's

unopposed request and DISMISS this matter WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the

prehearing conference call scheduled for September 26, 2023, is CANCELED.

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated this 25th day of Septembe r 2023, at

Houston, Texas

HON. TOMMY CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAWruDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KEANDRE DASHAWN IVORY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-891

March 20, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm without comment the revocation 

of Keandre Dashawn Ivory's probation in circuit court case nos. 14-

15085-CF and 14-15318-CF and the resulting sentences. However, we 

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
2

remand for the correction of a scrivener's error in the revocation order 

entered in case no. 14-15318-CF. 

The affidavit of violation alleged in part that Ivory had violated 

condition 21 of his probation in each case for failing to abide by his 

curfew. But in case no. 14-15318-CF, condition 21 required Ivory to 

submit to random drug and alcohol testing; it was condition 22 that 

imposed a curfew in that case. Despite identifying the condition violated 

in case no. 14-15318-CF as condition 21 rather than condition 22, the 

affidavit of violation described the condition as requiring Ivory to abide by 

a curfew. And it is clear that the parties and the court understood the 

violation in both cases to be the failure to abide by the curfew imposed. 

See Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("A 

violation of supervision need not be alleged with the same specificity 

necessary for an information charging an offense, and even a charging 

document's error in citation 'shall not be ground for dismissing the count 

or for a reversal of a conviction based thereon if the error or omission did 

not mislead the defendant to the defendant's prejudice.' " (first citing 

Hollingshead v. State, 846 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); and then 

quoting McMann v. State, 954 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007))). 

Therefore, we affirm the order of revocation and sentence in each 

case but remand for the circuit court to correct the revocation order 

entered in case no. 14-15318-CF to reflect that Ivory was found to be in 

violation of condition 22 instead of condition 21. See id. 

Affirmed; remanded.

SILBERMAN and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Kathryn Battaglia, Respondent, v Sisters of Charity Hospital, Appellant.

Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action. The personnel manual in this case cannot be interpreted to limit defendant’s power to terminate an at-will employee in light of the language of the manual that it is not a contract, that it may be modified, amended or supplemented, and that the hospital retains the right to make all necessary management decisions for the delivery of patient care services and the selection, direction, compensation and retention of employees *(see, Collins v Hoselton Datsun,*120 AD2d 952; *cf. Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc.,*57 NY2d 458; *Tiranno v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*99 AD2d 675). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Broughton, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### ROWELL v. LAMBERT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

Action by George P. Bowell against Edward W. Lambert.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 1149.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

______________________________________________________________________________ GARY TAYLOR ,

Petit io ner / Appellant , v. GEORGE ANTHONY TAYLOR and ANNE MARIE TAYLOR ,

Defendant s / Appellee . Ca u se No . DA - 23 - 0554 **ORDER EXTENDING DUE DATE FOR**

**OPENING BRIEF**

UPON READING the unopposed Motion for an extension o f time of due date for the Opening Brief and finding good cause appearing therein. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opening brief in the above - listed case is GRANTED an addit io nal thirty

(30) day s to file, and must be filed by December 22, 2023. Dated thi s _____ day

of __________________________.

________________________ Judge / Cl erk of the Suprem e Court

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court November 28 2023

11/28/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0554
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2462 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2462

    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2015

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself and Ms. Slaughter) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Industry Fair 
Competition Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR 
              INSURERS.

    (a) Amendment to McCarran-Ferguson Act.--Section 3 of the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to 
the business of health insurance. For purposes of the preceding 
sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in 
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that 
such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the 
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.''.
    (b) Related Provision.--For purposes of section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies 
to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance 
without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, 
notwithstanding the definition of ``Corporation'' contained in section 
4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                            
|John E. McNulty                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 4, 2005
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Barry L. BOWERS, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,811.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Oct. 24, 1975.

*Colonel Alton H. Harvey, Captain John C. Carr*and *Captain John R. Osgood*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain John F. DePue*and *Captain Joel M. Martel*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, the appellant was convicted at his general court-martial of charges laid under Article 134 of the Code1 alleging three specifications of wrongful distribution of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 years, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence, except he reduced the forfeitures to $228 per month for 12 months and suspended imposition of the dishonorable discharge for 6 months.

All parties at trial operated under the misconception that the maximum sentence to confinement to which appellant was subject was 30 years, rather than 15.2 Additionally, the appellant pleaded guilty *201pursuant to a pretrial agreement which, undoubtedly, was negotiated under a similar misconception as to the maximum sentence to confinement. A plea of guilty may be improvident if it is predicated upon a substantial misunderstanding on the accused’s part as to the maximum punishment imposable. *United States v. Zemartis,*10 U.S.C.M.A. 353, 27 C.M.R. 427 (1959); *United States v. Hamil,*8 U.S.C.M.A. 464, 24 C.M.R. 274 (1957). Since the difference between the maximum sentence as perceived and that actually imposable in all likelihood seriously affected the negotiations leading to the pretrial agreement, the guilty pleas entered pursuant to that contract must be said to have been improvidently entered. *United States*v. *Turner,*18 U.S.C.M.A. 55, 39 C.M.R. 55 (1968).

The decision of the U. S. Army Court of Military Review is reversed and the findings and sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

1

. Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934.

2

. Wrongful and intentional distribution of LSD, listed under schedule III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), is punishable, in pertinent part, by confinement at hard labor for a maximum of 5 years per offense — a total of 15 years in the case sub judice. All parties at the trial level, however, erroneously relied upon the maximum sentence listed in the Table of Maximum Punishments, paragraph 127c, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.), of 10 years for each offense involving a *habit-forming*drug — an incorrect maximum of 30 years in this case.
EXHIBIT 32

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 of Capital Growth Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Jim McDevitt, the Chief
Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to l8 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: April 29, 2008

By:

/S/    PATRICK C. SHUTTPatrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive Officer


By:

/S/    JIM
MCDEVITTJim McDevitt, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
INTEVAC,
INC.2003 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
AS AMENDED, FEBRUARY 2011
  Purpose
 Eligibility
 Offering Periods
 Limitations
 Offering Periods
 Participation
 First Purchase Interval in the Offering Period.
 1




---



##### 



Subsequent Purchase Intervals and Offering Periods
 Payroll Deductions
      2




---



##### 



Grant of Purchase Right
 Exercise of Purchase Right
   3




---



##### 



Delivery
 Withdrawal
   Termination of Employment
 Interest
 4




---



##### 



Stock
   Administration
 Designation of Beneficiary
    Transferability
 Use of Funds
 Reports
 5




---



##### 



Adjustments, Dissolution, Liquidation, Merger or Change of Control
 Adjustments
 Dissolution or Liquidation
 Merger or Change of Control
 Amendment or Termination
  6




---



##### 



Notices
 Conditions Upon Issuance of Shares
  Term of Plan
 Automatic Transfer to Low Price Offering Period
 7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



APPENDIX
  Definitions
 Administrator
 Board
 Change of Control
     Code
 Common Stock
 Company
 Compensation
 Designated Subsidiary
 Director
 Employee
 Employer
 Enrollment Date
 9




---



##### 



Entry Date
 Exchange Act
 Fair Market Value
 The Wall Street Journal
 The Wall Street Journal
  Offering Periods
 Parent
 Plan
 Purchase Date
 Purchase Interval
 Purchase Price
 Semi-Annual Entry Date
 Subsidiary
 Trading Day
 10
Document

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 2, dated as of June 30, 2021 (this “Amendment”), to the Shareholders’ Agreement, dated as of August 11, 2004 (the “Agreement”), is made between Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands (the “Company”), and David Einhorn (the “Shareholder”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”) has determined it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to extend the expiration date of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Section 15 of the Agreement, the Committee has authorized and approved this Amendment as of the date hereof.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements herein set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1.    Section 15(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


“(c) Term and Termination. 


This Agreement may be terminated at any time by an instrument in writing signed by all of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall terminate automatically as to any Shareholder that Transfers all of its equity securities of the Company. The provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 14 of this Agreement, other than Section 2(d) of this Agreement shall terminate automatically as to all parties hereto upon the consummation of an IPO. Unless sooner terminated, this Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2024, unless, at any time within one (1) year prior to such date, all of the parties extend its duration for as many additional periods, each not to exceed ten (10) years, as they may desire.”


2.    This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the law of the State of New York and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of such State applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such State.


3.      This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. A signature to this Amendment transmitted electronically shall have the same authority, effect and enforceability as an original signature. This Amendment shall be effective as of the close of business on the date hereof.


[Signature Page Follows]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE, LTD.
By:     /s/ Laura Accurso           
			
	Name: Laura Accurso
Title:   General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

















DAVID EINHORN, as Shareholder
By:    /s/ David Einhorn               
			
	Name: David Einhorn