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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from consolidated financial
statements for the first quarter ended March 31, 1998, filed on form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                       540
<INVENTORY>                                      4,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,722
<PP&E>                                          42,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,728)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,650
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,120
<SALES>                                         18,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,329
<CGS>                                           12,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (21)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00212

- CV

Nortex Foundation Designs, Inc.

v.

Douglas H. Ream and Karen S.

Ream §

§

§

§ From the 211th Dist rict Court

o f Denton County (2009

- 30240

- 211)

July 11, 2013

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the order of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Nortex Foundation Designs, Inc. shall

pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
Case 1:05-cv-07117-VM     Document 12      Filed 11/28/2007     Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 58 - Satellites and Cloud Computing      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we learn how cloud computing expands the value of satellite data.

View Media Details

View

View Media Details

Download and transcript access

**Summary**: Satellite imagery is everywhere. We see it on TV news and weather coverage, in our Twitter and Facebook feeds, and on our phones’ mapping apps. The data behind that imagery is nothing like a screenshot, though. It’s comprised of tiny packets of data, broken down from huge files and digitally manipulated to resemble the surface of the Earth, a swirling storm system or a map of urban growth. Cloud computing resources can make it easier to work with huge datasets that cover long periods of time, which is why many remote sensing scientists are using it for their analyses. On this episode of Eyes on Earth, we hear from a scientist who used the cloud for a 150-year water use modeling project, and from a data scientist working to help train others to use cloud resources.

**Guests:** Stefanie Kagone, contract remote sensing scientist, USGS EROS Center; Aaron Friesz, contract science coordination lead for NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC).

**Host:** John Hult

**Producer:** John Hult

**Release date:** Sept. 7, 2021

**More on satellites and cloud computing:**
                            - USGS Early Warning – Operational Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SSEBop) Evapotranspiration
                            - NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center 
                            - NASA Earth Data – Python tutorial
                            - Jupyter notebook – LP DAAC
                            - LP DAAC Cloud Data Tutorial
                            - Announcing the NASA Openscapes Framework

### Contacts

#### Timothy A. Glynn

##### Chief of Staff

Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

tglynn@usgs.gov

605-594-6046
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 22 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 22 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 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 Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005,
(the "Report"), I, Scott MacCaughern, Principal Executive Officer and
Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of
       operations.

December 9, 2005

/S/ Scott MacCaughern
Scott MacCaughern (Principal Executive Officer and Director)
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1250 

KA 13-01951 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIS KNIGHT, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a resentence of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis

DeMarco, J.), rendered September 6, 2013. Defendant was resentenced

following his conviction, upon a plea of guilty, of burglary in the

second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a resentence following his conviction

upon a plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law 

§ 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that County Court erred in

resentencing him as a second violent felony offender and that the

resentence is unduly harsh and severe. We reject those contentions. 

We note at the outset that the posthearing loss of the exhibits that

were submitted at the predicate felony hearing, including the

certificate of conviction from the predicate felony offense, does not

deprive defendant of his right to appellate review of these issues. 

At the hearing, defense counsel did not object to the admission in

evidence of the certificate of conviction, and there is no dispute

that the certificate of conviction bore defendant’s name and date of

birth and was therefore “sufficient to establish that defendant was

previously convicted of [the predicate] crime” (People v Switzer, 55

AD3d 1394, 1395, lv denied 11 NY3d 858; see People v Rattelade, 226

AD2d 1107, 1107-1108, lv denied 88 NY2d 992). Inasmuch as “the

information in the missing [certificate of conviction] can be gleaned

from the record and there is no dispute with respect to the accuracy

of that information,” we conclude that there is sufficient information

to allow for effective appellate review of defendant’s contention

(People v Jackson, 11 AD3d 928, 930, lv denied 3 NY3d 757; see

generally People v Yavru-Sakuk, 98 NY2d 56, 60). Based on the record,

we conclude that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that

defendant was a second violent felony offender (see People v Kinnear,
-2- 1250 

KA 13-01951 

78 AD3d 1593, 1594). We further conclude that the resentence is not

unduly harsh or severe. 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### FOUKE v. HINDMAN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 27, 1923.)

No. 4028.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi ; William B. Sheppard, Judge.

Action by S. H. Hindman against C. W. Fouke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Ben F. Cameron and A. S. Bozeman, both of Meridian, Miss., and Stone Deavours, of Laurel, Miss. (Henry Hilbun, of Laurel, Miss., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Robert L. Bullard, of Hattiesburg, Miss., for defendant in error.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit-Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this suit for. several years had been . jointly interested as stockholders in the George W. Fouke Lumber Company, a corporation, in Texas, and in a partnership of the same name in Mississippi. In 1921 Fouke, the defendant, was desirous of selling the partnership property to a corporation in which he was to become interested as a stockholder. Hindman, the plaintiff, objected to the sale, but finally agreed to it upon condition that Fouke would pay to him the amount shown by their books of account to be due to him by both the corporation and the partnership. Fouke agreed, to these terms of settlement, and thereupon Hindman joined him in the sale of the property belonging to the partnership in Mississippi. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The assignments of error are based solely upon the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. No exception to any ruling is presented, and no objection was made to any of the evidence, which as a whole appears to be sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 26 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-181612) and Amendment No. 736 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst &  Young, LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2019
#### Thomas L. Copeland et al., Appellants, v Town of *912Amboy et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: A motion to set aside a verdict of no cause of action as being against the weight of the evidence should not be granted "unless the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” *(Kuncio v Millard Fillmore Hosp.,*117 AD2d 975, 976, *Iv denied*68 NY2d 608). To do otherwise would usurp the jury’s responsibility *(see, Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 133). The court’s denial of the motion in this case was proper.

Similarly without merit is plaintiffs’ argument that a new trial was required because of juror misconduct. In support of the motion, plaintiffs presented the affidavit of the only juror who had voted to find defendants negligent. This juror averred that the jury discussed the case throughout the trial, contrary to the court’s instructions, and that at least one juror had given his opinion, prior to submission of the case to the panel, that plaintiff Thomas Copeland was negligent.

"[A] juror is not competent to impeach his verdict which has been made and returned into court” (Richardson, Evidence § 407 [Prince 10th ed]; Siegel, NY Prac § 401; *see also, Alford v Sventek,*53 NY2d 743, 744; *Lundgren v McColgin,*96 AD2d 706, 707). There are certain limited exceptions to this rule, none of which apply to the facts in this case *(see, People v Huntley,*87 AD2d 488, 492, *affd*59 NY2d 868; *Mercurio v Dunlop, Ltd.,*77 AD2d 647; *Payne v Burke,*236 App Div 527, 528). Nothing in the affidavit of the juror offered by plaintiffs indicates that any juror had any preexisting bias against plaintiffs or that the suggestion by one juror that it looked like the accident was Mr. Copeland’s fault was based upon anything other than the evidence presented at trial. Plaintiffs’ motion was " 'based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice’ * * * thus, the court’s denial of the motion without a hearing was a proper exercise of discretion” *(People v Rhodes,*92 AD2d 744, 745, quoting *Snediker v County of Orange,*58 NY2d 647, 649).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining argument and find it without merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Donovan, J. — set aside verdict.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 20-9 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 20-9 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.23
 
 Symetra Financial Corporation
 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
  Purpose
 Definitions
 Administrator
 Board
 Change of Control
   
  - 1 -




---



##### 



Code
 Committee
 Common Stock
 Company
 Compensation
 Designated Subsidiary
 Eligible Employee
 Fair Market Value
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Offering Date
 Offering Periods
 Plan
 Purchase Date
 Purchase Periods
 Purchase Price
 Subsidiary
 Trading Day
 Eligibility
 Offering Periods
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Limitations
 Offering Periods
 Participation
 First Offering Period
 Subsequent Offering Periods
 Payroll Deductions
  - 4 -




---



##### 



the Company may decrease After such a change may as soon as or at any time thereafter provided the participant timely elects to increase his or her payroll deduction above zero
percent (0%) 1
  
 1
    
    Underlining added to highlight new text effective 05/11/10. - 5 -




---



##### 



Grant of Option
 Exercise of Option
   - 6 -




---



##### 



Delivery
 Withdrawal
   Termination of Employment
 Interest
 Stock
  - 7 -




---



##### 



Administration
 Designation of Beneficiary
    Transferability
 - 8 -




---



##### 



Use of Funds
 Reports
 Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization, Dissolution, Liquidation, Merger or Change
of Control
 Changes in Capitalization
 Dissolution or Liquidation
 - 9 -




---



##### 



Merger or Change of Control
 Amendment or Termination
     - 10 -




---



##### 



Notices
 Conditions Upon Issuance of Shares
 Term of Plan
 - 11 -




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A
 Symetra Financial Corporation
 Designated Subsidiaries
 Symetra Life Insurance Company
 Medical Risk Managers, Inc.
 - 12 -
HEDGE
Street

June 27, 2006

VIA EMAIL: secretary@cftc.gov

Ms. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary
Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
3 Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

RE: Certification: HedgeStreet to List New Spot Crude Oil Binary Contracts with
Larger Settlement Values— Submission pursuant to Commission Regulation §40.6(a)

Dear Secretary Webb:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“Act”), and §40.6(a)

of the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the

“Commission”) under the Act (the “Regulations”), HedgeStreet, Inc. (“HedgeStreet”) hereby
submits to the Commission amendments to the Spot Crude Oil Binary Contracts (“Contracts”).
HedgeStreet is increasing the Settlement Value for such Contracts to $100. As a result of the increase
in the Settlement Value amount, HedgeStreet is amending both the HedgeSteet reporting level and
speculative position limits for these Contracts in order to accommodate the larger Settlement Value.
All amendments for these Contracts are defined in Exhibit A. The rule deletions are stricken out and
the amendments and/or additions are underlined. HedgeStreet is also delisting the Spot Crude Oil
Binary Contracts that have a Settlement Value of $10 until further notice to the Commission. There
will be no open interest in the $10 Spot Crude Oil Binary Contracts upon the delisting of such $10

contracts.

HedgeStreet intends to implement these rule amendments at the start of business on Wednesday,
June 28, 2006. No substantive opposing views were expressed to HedgeStreet with respect to
these additions. HedgeStreet hereby certifies that the Contracts and clearing of the Contracts,
including all rules defining the terms and conditions of said Contracts contained herein, complies

with the Act and the Regulations.

Should you have any questions regarding this filing, please do not hesitate to contact me by

telephone at (650) 638-3511 or by email at sford@hedgestreet.com.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Ford
Vice President, Legal & Compliance

cc: Clarissa Manansala — HedgeStreet, Inc.

www.hedgestreet.com

1825 S. Grant Street

San Mateo, CA 94402
Tet: 650.638.3500
Fax: 650.638.3501



EXHIBIT A

HEDGE
Street
EXHIBIT A

(The following new Rule additions are underlined and deletions are stricken out)

RULE 12.59 CRUDE OIL BINARY HEDGELET CONTRACTS

(a) — (g) [unchanged]

(h)REPORTING LEVEL ~ The Reporting Level for the $100 Crude Oil Binary
Hedgelets shall be +250 1.750 Contracts.

(POSITION LIMIT — The Position Limits for the $100 Crude Oil Binary
Hedgelets shall be 25,000 2,500 Contracts.

@-@

(m) SETTLEMENT VALUE - The Settlement Value is the amount paid to the
holder of the in the money Contract on the Settlement Date. The Settlement Value of an in
the money Crude Oil Binary Hedgelet Contract is $40 $100.

(n) - (0) [unchanged]

*** fend Rulebook] ***

1825 S. Grant Street
Suite 500

San Mateo, CA 94402
Tel: 650.638.3500

www.hedgestreet.com Fax: 650.638.3501
Back to Contents

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.**

In connection with the Quarterly    Report of Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc., (the “Company”)    on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities    and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David    H. Gonci, Chief  Financial Officer of the Company certify, to my knowledge,    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of    the Sarbanes-Oxley    Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

     

|   |   |   | /s/ David H. Gonci                                                       |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |        |                                                                     |
|   |   |   | David H. Gonci                                                           |   |
|   |   |   | Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer            August 13, 2003 |   |

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 on request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.

 

29

----
# Fact Sheets

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Español)  (PDF, 150.3 KB)

October 30, 2023

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization  (PDF, 147.15 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States (French)  (PDF, 268.23 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States (WOLOF)  (PDF, 328.82 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States (Ukrainian)  (PDF, 447.54 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States (Russian)  (PDF, 365.51 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States (Español)  (PDF, 338.69 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States (Haitian Creole)  (PDF, 272.51 KB)

October 30, 2023

Important Information About Working Legally in the United States  (PDF, 341.2 KB)

October 30, 2023

Eligible to Naturalize Factsheet: Salt Lake City, UT  (PDF, 3.31 MB)

May 04, 2023

11 - 20 total rows

- **Back
- Next**

    RSS Feed  

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
(84 South. 925)

#### WALKER v. HAMMETT et al.

(7 Div. 43.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 13, 1920.)

Appeal from Probate Court, Etowah County; L. L. Herzberg, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas A. Catalano, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ DOUGLAS  A. CATALANO |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |
|   | Douglas A.  Catalano     |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | May 7, 2004              |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherentCorp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----