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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,785
<SECURITIES>                                    19,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,499
<PP&E>                                          19,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,038
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,768
<OTHER-SE>                                    (73,838)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,427
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,129
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,680)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,680)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.90)


</TABLE>
Exhibit (g)(16)

Form of

APPENDIX A

TO

CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

AND

EACH OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES

DATED AS OF ________, 2009
#### Peter T. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrel LEMOS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-15101.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Peter T. Harrell, Yreka, CA, pro se.

Philip B. Price, Esq., Chico, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they arrested and searched him without probable cause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on *Heck v. Humphurey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). *Whitaker v.*
      *615
      *Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007). We vacate.

We vacate the district court’s dismissal of Harrell’s action as *Heck-h Hired. See Wallace v. Kato,*549 U.S. 384, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1098, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (instructing that civil proceedings should be stayed while related criminal charges are pending). Because the district court did not have the benefit of *Wallace*when it dismissed the action, we vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

Because we vacate we do not consider Harrell’s other contentions.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

June 15, 2001 at 11 a.m.

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Agenda for future meeting: none

2. Minutes

3. Ratification List

4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-364 and 731-TA-711 and 713-716 (Review) (Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on June 28, 2001.)

5. Outstanding action jackets: none

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

Issued: June 7, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14747  Filed 6-7-01; 2:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN

&mrahle J., D. Looney oounty,Auditor pewi OouAty Boston,Texas Oplnfon Ho. 0.

Eehaveyour favor 0 opinion on the above satter, 9, requestlq aA eing as Sollowar
this oSSio8 at o? this County 00rdea S- 30 ehou that tbs moora while tually on the 6OOaOA tb3 seal was aaroper mh0a 0f aeal to this rea8 8asl be added t0 uld the deed be reaorded

eord8d should 8See be eiwr&wb person riling the am or word the deed gratis to ooruutg Clerks apparent error.

Thegeneral rule is that %n oSSloer mayaorreot mistakes In his offiolal reoorda, on proper showing@, 36 Tex. Jur., .8so. 10, p. 407; but'wefail to find any statute or deelslon authoriqing a Bounty clerk to oorreot amistake ma&ebya forner oounty olerk somethirty or iorty years ago,Iionorable J. D. Looney, PEi&e 2

It Is our opinion, therefore, that the present oountg 018x-k WouldAOt be authorized to oorrast the reoord referred to by now showing that the notary’s seal appeared on said deeds.

‘Yedonot think that it is neoessary for said deede to be again recorded, slnoe It has been ect?erally held that the mre Sact that samehave been heretofore reoorded Is evlaenoe of the Sect that they were exeouted as provided for by law, and it would be presumed that the mtarg aiilxed the seal 

### to 

### l okncmledgtnente taken by him. 1 Tex. Jur., Sea. 78, pp. 4864; Alexander v. Houghton, 26 E. %. 1102. Further, under the provlalo~s of 

### P.rtioles 3726 end 3726b, it lo our oplnlon that. said deeds would be as 

### sffeative '%ltSout having 

### said rea

### orda oorreoted, or Bald deed&

### seain reoorded, as they wmld be if s-8 ware raoorded, slnae aald titlolss provide that where deeds have

### been OA reoor4 a8 long as tea years It ahall be noobjaotlon to the admlsslon oi sam, or a oertifted aopp 

### thereor, aa mldenoe th,at the 

### of?leer taking the aoknowledgmat or such instrunent harfng an ottfolal seal aidnot aVflr 

### themm3to the 

### certirioate of aokmwledgment, 

### orthat the 

### notarial

seal le not showaOSrecord, It 1s our OpiniCiA, ths?sf'ore,,that 

### If the partlss lntsrastsd ln these deedadesire to ham sameagain reoorded they should pay the Seee requlrea thereror.

Trusting this satisfactorily answers your Inquiry, weare Very truly youra ATTORNEY

f3ZEtPAL

08TXXAS
November 2 9 , 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JECARRA TREMAIN LANE , Appellant

NO. 10

- 00925

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for

observan ce.
Presidential Documents

31833

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 113

Tuesday, June 12, 2001

Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of May 31, 2001

Delegation of Authority Under Section 703 of the Security

Assistance Act of 2000

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

By the authority vested in my by the Constitution and the laws of the

United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States

Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority vested

in me under section 703 of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (Public

Law 106–280).

The authority delegated by this memorandum may be redelegated not lower

than the Assistant Secretary level.

Any reference in this memorandum to the provision of any Act shall be

deemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provision of law

that is the same or substantially the same as such provision.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal

Register.

[FR Doc. 01–14955

Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, May 31, 2001.

W

Billing code 5001–08–M
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG AND JAMES CITY COUNTY

#### Hazel O. Fletcher v. Anthony Craig Tippens

May 7, 1990

Case No. (Law) 4836

By Judge William L. Person, Jr.

Rule 3:3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides as follows:

> No judgment shall be entered against a defendant who was served with process more than one year after the commencement of the action against him unless the Court finds as fact that the plaintiff exercised due diligence to have timely service on him.

Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this suit since there was no service of process within one year of the commencement of the action. Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because the plaintiff exercised due diligence to have timely service on defendant.

The burden is on the plaintiff to show that he has, as fact, exercised due diligence to have timely service.

The chronology of events is as follows. The automobile accident occurred on August 29, 1984. Between October 22, 1985, and March 17,1986, there was the usual *correspondence between the insurance*company and plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorney testified that shortly before August 26, 1986, the representative (Armstrong) of the insurance company and the attorney agreed orally that suit would be filed to toll the statute of limitations and defendant would not be served at that time. Armstrong denies the essence of this conversation and asserts that plaintiff’s attorney was told to do “what was necessary to protect his client.” Suit was filed on August 26, 1986. A letter *531dated December 16, 1986, from the law firm representing the insurance company to Rideout recites that they had been retained to represent defendant “once you obtain service of your Motion for Judgment.” No service was obtained on the suit, and defendant moved to dismiss the suit under Rule 3:3 after more than a year had passed. On March 1, 1988, plaintiff nonsuited this original suit and recommenced the action on the same day by filing another suit. Service on the defendant was attempted on March 10, 1988, but was unsuccessful. Return of service was marked not found “moved over two yrs. ago - address unk.” From April 4, 1988, to October 19, 1988, there was the usual correspondence between the attorneys. On June 30, 1989, plaintiff apparently obtained service under § 8.01-329 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.

In spite of defendant’s posture of moving the Court to dismiss the first suit under Rule 3:3 and being aware that service of process was not successful nine days after refiling the Motion for Judgment, plaintiff did not avail himself of alternative service of process until sixteen months had passed.

The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence to have timely service on defendant as required by Rule 3:3 so as to fall within the exception set out in the Rule. The Court hereby grants the motion of defendant to dismiss.
EXHIBIT 99



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - April 19, 2000

CONTACT:       Linda A. Pleiman
               Manager - Investor Relations
               lpleiman@nsgrouponline.com


     NS GROUP, INC.  ELECTS THREE  NEW  DIRECTORS TO BOARD


Newport, Kentucky - NS Group, Inc. announced today that Mr.
David Brown, Mr. George Helland Jr., P.E. and Mr. Gary Kott
were elected to the Board of Directors effective April 20,
2000.

Mr. David Brown is currently the President of The Windsor
Group, Inc. a consulting company which focuses on strategy
related issues facing oilfield services and engineering
companies.  Mr. Brown currently serves on the Board of
Directors and is Chairman of the Audit Committee for BTU
International, Inc., EMCOR Group, Inc. and Marine Drilling
Companies, Inc.  He serves on the Board of Directors and is a
member of the Audit Committee for Technical Communications
Corp.  He is a member of the three-man Executive Committee for
Marine Drilling Companies, as well as the Chairman of the
Compensation Committee for BTU International, Inc.

Mr. George Helland is currently a Senior Associate serving as
the oil service industry expert at Cambridge Energy Research
Associates, an independent firm providing insight into the
energy future.  Mr. Helland currently serves as a director for
Junior Achievement International, the Eurasia Foundation,
Southwest Research Institute and Briarwood School.  Mr.
Helland held senior positions with a number of leading oil
service companies and was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy
in the Bush administration.

Mr. Kott, a retired executive of Global Marine, Inc., is
currently a consultant in the areas of corporate strategy,
financing, operations efficiency and organizational
development.  He is past Chairman of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) and was elected
"Contractor of the Year" in 1992.  He also serves on the board
of TESCO Corporation and Friede, Goldman, Halter, Inc.

Mr. Rene J. Robichaud, President and Chief Executive Officer
of NS Group, Inc. stated, "We are  excited about the
appointment of these board members.  Their experience and
insight will be very helpful in bringing NS Group closer to
our customer base in the energy industry."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 144 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 144

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
                   the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2009

    Mr. Conyers (for himself and Mr. Smith of Texas) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
                   the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $19,052,900 for the One Hundred 
Eleventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $9,336,600 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2009, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2010; and
            (2) not more than $9,716,300 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2010, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2011.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register: November 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 64248]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19no98-52]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, December 28, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-31052 Filed 11-17-98; 2:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6257

DENNIS AYERS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

DARNLEY R. HODGE, Superintendent; MS. BEACH, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-00597-JBF-JEB) 

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Ayers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dennis Ayers appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Ayers v. Hodge, No. 2:07-cv-00597-JBFJEB (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2008). 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
No. 131.

#### New York ex rel. Federal Motor Truck Co. *v.*Lynch et al.

November 11, 1935.
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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K as amended by Form 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1 of Voxware, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Thomas J. Drury, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.




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








Dated: March 31,
    2005
    
    By: /s/ Thomas J. Drury,
      Jr.Thomas J. Drury, Jr.Chief Executive
  Officer
```

[Federal Register: December 23, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 67053]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de97-58]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 30, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, DC, 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-33628 Filed 12-19-97; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
#### Juan Manuel DIAZ-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72063.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 12, 2008.

*690Elizabeth Perez, Esquire, Law Offices of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Manuel Diaz-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children.

In his motion to reopen, petitioner asserted exceptional and extremely unusual hardship based on the new evidence that his children are suffering from obesity and related conditions. We conclude that the BIA considered the new evidence, and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.0
 
  (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 Meridian Interstate
Bancorp as of and for the period covered by the Report.
 Dated:  August 9, 2010
    /s/ Richard J. GavegnanoRichard J. GavegnanoChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  August 9, 2010
    /s/ Mark L. AbbateMark L. AbbateSenior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)