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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM S3
INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          27,303
<SECURITIES>                                   402,933
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,723
<INVENTORY>                                     87,062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               612,651
<PP&E>                                         107,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,263,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          247,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       591,120
<OTHER-SE>                                     210,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,263,810
<SALES>                                        437,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               437,499
<CGS>                                          439,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  439,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               194,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                695,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                   306,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            389,711
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   380,337
<EPS-BASIC>                                          4
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        4


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HILTON THOMAS, a/k/a Dinkles,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:97-cr-00355-JKB-3)

Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: April 28, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7390 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Hilton Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of 

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 

326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. 

High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for 

denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Thomas, No. 1:97-cr-00355-JKB-3 (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2022). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7390 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                                  CERTIFICATION


         Solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, the undersigned certify that the foregoing Form 10-Q fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated. No
purchaser or seller of securities shall be entitled to rely on the foregoing
statement for any purpose, and the undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation
to update the foregoing statement except as required by law.


                                                    FIRST FEDERAL CAPITAL CORP


/s/ Jack C. Rusch                                   November 14, 2002
Jack C. Rusch
President and Chief Executive Officer
(duly authorized officer)


/s/ Michael W. Dosland                              November 14, 2002
Michael W. Dosland
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stacey L. Williams, Appellant.

[881 NYS2d 344]

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered April 27, 2007. The order directed defendant to pay restitution.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the amount of restitution ordered and as modified the order is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Genesee County Court for a new hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second *1137degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), and he now appeals from an order of restitution. Defendant contends that County Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $4,812.35. We agree, for the same reason as that set forth in our decision in *People v Bunnell*(59 AD3d 942 [2009], *amended on rearg*63 AD3d 1671 [2009], *amended*63 AD3d 1727 [2009]). Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), preservation is not required because defendant has an essential “right to be sentenced as provided by law” *(People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152, 156 [1982]), and that right is implicated here *(see Bunnell,*63 AD3d 1727). We therefore modify the order by vacating the amount of restitution ordered, and we remit the matter to County Court for a new hearing to determine the amount of restitution in compliance with Penal Law § 60.27. Present—Scudder, PJ., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.
COMMENT 

secretary 

From: Sid Love [sidneyl@everestkc.net] 

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:50 PM 

To: secretary 

Subject: Proposed Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits 

The original purpose of grain futures was to converge physical cash markets and futures in delivery 

months to give farmers a place to sale and buyers a chance to source physical cash they needed. Since 

speculative position limits were doubled a few years ago, the convergence of cash and futures has become more 

difficult. If the speculative limits are doubled again, as proposed for corn and wheat and about 32 % for 

soybeans, the convergence of cash and futures will be even more difficult. 

In my view, the further the divergence of futures with cash increases, the less that futures and the 

underlying agricultural commodity are related, except in name only. 

Perhaps a more prudent approach, at this time of record high futures, would be to slowly increase 

speculative position limits, if they must be increased. Otherwise, you run the risk of sharply higher food price 

inflation, which will fall most on our consumers who can affford it least. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Sid Love 

.... ~. 

..... ,,.., .~ . ) 

") r·n 

: ,··; Fr~~ 

1118/2008
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MORRIS DAVID KRUMHORN 

CITATION: 30 Agric. Dec. 1641 

DOCKET NUMBER: F-1 

DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1971 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

NOTE: THIS CASE WAS A FITNESS HEARING 

(No. 14,268) 

In re MORRIS DAVID KRUMHORN. CEA Docket No. F-1. Decided November 29, 1971. 

Dismissal -- Withdrawal of application for registration 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The applicant herein for registration as a floor broker under the Commodity 

Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Ch. 1) has withdrawn his answer to a notice of hearing 

pursuant to an agreement with the Commodity Exchange Authority which has filed a 

motion to dismiss the notice of hearing without prejudice. 

The motion to dismiss is granted. 

LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2008 
Page 2
secretary 

From: rbennett@candrtrans.com 

Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:31 PM 

secretary 

s I*; li. 9. 

OFFI_CE OF THE SECRETARIAT 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: Public Comment Form 

200i .· UJl!:~ ~:- 7 Pfl lf 11 

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 

-~~~~~~~==~~~~~~=~~~~: ~~~~- ~~- ~~~~~~~~~ ~- ~~~-~~~- ~~~=- ~= -~~ ~=~~ ~~---------COMMENT 

commenter_subject: Unregulated Hedge Funds 

commenter_comments: The commission must not allow the exempt funds to 

manipulate the energy markets.These huge funds with 

their vast resources can and will overwhelm any 

futures market if left unchecked as the last 

administration did. 

The flow of fund money is moving the energy 

markets higher the last few weeks despite the very 

bearish fundamentals.My business cannot survive a 

repeat of 2007/2008. 

commenter name: Ronny Bennett 

commenter firm: C & R Transportation 

commenter addressl: PO Box 54262 

commenter_city: Lubbock 

commenter state: Texas 

commenter_zip: 79453 

commenter_fax: 806 748 6808 

commenter_phone: 806 748 1378 

1
Jihad Abdulla SHARRIEFF, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 16-5877.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.17

EXECUTIVEOFFICERCASHCOMPENSATIONARRANGEMENTS

Annual salaries for Avigens named
executive officers are, as of March 15, 2009, as follows:

|Name                         |  | Position                     |  | Salary
|---------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ------
|Kenneth Chahine, J.D., Ph.D. |  | President, Chief Executive   |  | $     
|                             |  | Officer and Director         |  |       
|                            
|Michael Coffee               |  | Chief Business Officer       |  | $     
|                            
|Kirk Johnson, Ph.D.          |  | Vice President, Research and |  | $     
|                             |  | Development                  |  |       
|                            
|Andrew Sauter                |  | Chief Financial Officer      |  | $     
|                            
|M. Christina Thomson, J.D.   |  | Vice President, General      |  | $     
|                             |  | Counsel and Secretary        |  |       

The Compensation Committee has not yet
established target bonuses for 2009, nor has it established criteria for
corporate and individual performance objectives that are intended to be used to
determine actual bonuses to be paid for serviced rendered in 2009.

---
Exhibit 32.2

 

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 SiriCOMM, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2007 (the “Report”), I, John Hillring, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Hillring                      

John Hillring

Chief Accounting Officer

May 21, 2007

 

A signed original of this certification 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 MigraTEC, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, 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 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/ T. Ulrich Brechbuhl
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       T. Ulrich Brechbuhl
                                       Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                       Financial Officer
                                       November 14, 2002
FILED

May 21, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

NOVEMBER SESSION, 1996

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) No. 02C01-9512-CR-00358

Appellee )

) SHELBY COUNTY

vs. )

) Hon. Joseph B. Brown, Jr., Judge

DARYL CONNER, )

) (Robbery)

Appellant )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

MELANIE E. TAYLOR CHARLES W. BURSON

and Attorney General and Reporter

WILLIAM JOHNSON

Attorneys at Law MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II

50 Front Street, Suite 1150 Assistant Attorney General

Memphis, TN 38103 Criminal Justice Division

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM GIBBONS

District Attorney General

DAVID SHAPIRO

GLEN BAITY

Asst. District Attorneys General

Criminal Justice Complex

Third Floor, 201 Poplar

Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: 

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

David G. Hayes

Judge
2

OPINION

The appellant, Daryl Conner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of

robbery. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence adduced

at trial is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

On May 9, 1994, Mrs. Lois Boggan, who was eighty-four years old, was at

home cooking dinner. Two men entered her kitchen through a back door and

forced Mrs. Boggan’s wedding band and engagement ring from her hand. The

assailants fled when Mrs. Boggan’s husband came into the room. One week

later, Mrs. Boggan positively identified the appellant in a photographic lineup as

one of the assailants. She again identified the appellant at trial. Additionally, on

the evening of the offense, a neighbor observed two men run from the Boggan’s

house and drive away in a car matching the description of a car owned by the

co-defendant, David Parrish. Parrish testified at trial that he and the appellant

committed the robbery.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs, and the law governing

the issue presented by the appellant, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient

to support the finding by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and

that no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent. Accordingly,

pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

____________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________

GARY R. WADE, Judge

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TFYAS 

### P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOL STATION, AUSTInSs 787H

.... . , OFFICIAL. BUSINESS 

### U. '-jA SfM'E^-TB^AS PENALTY FOR 4/8/2015 PRIVATE USE 

### FLORES, PETER Tr. O^No D-% 

# art. ^^^eW'-cat-on «^TM *e^atedprescribedform p,7 L^?T^°^G#/ooB Abel Acosta, Clerk k ^*UL°NGER li 4^P°% y^Mi'.t.-4'jjuTn-gt fe/<* <f°'g1^iggs5glg ;3 "By laiBaaff pitnev bowes 02 ir $ 00.266 0002003152 APR 09 2015 -MAILED FROMZIPCODE 78701 >3-A WR-83,052-01

A?



### DELVALLE.TX 78617' RETUsTM^DREss "EWiJiissB 7aWfi @2 34^4'tHifI•*f• HiifFfIM«i^1 • 11;|V-•"----ii-ii*• nffitl^1"-11"*-r,iV- ~^
#### William B. GREENE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery UTTECHT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-35967.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

William B. Greene, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.

Paul D. Weisser, Senior Counsel, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*654Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner William B. Greene appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Greene contends that the trial court committed constitutional error by: (1) giving a standard jury instruction on insanity rather than an instruction specifically tailored to his theory that he suffered from dissociative identity disorder; and (2) giving a voluntary act instruction that conflicted with his diminished capacity defense. Greene’s claims of instructional error are issues of state law that are not cognizable on federal habeas review. *See Hendricks v. Vasquez,*974 F.2d 1099, 1107 (9th Cir.1992). The state court’s decision rejecting Greene’s contention was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See 28*U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 70-72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

We construe Greene’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); *see also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Leslie H. PEACE, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16M40.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
mbcc-ex107_30.htm



Exhibit 10.7

 

AMENDMENT TO SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2016 (“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (“Mission”) is made to that certain Shared Services Agreement dated as of May 1, 1999 by and between Mission Broadcasting of Amarillo, Inc. and Quorum Broadcasting of Amarillo, LLC, as amended by those certain amendments dated December 30, 2003 and December 30, 2005, and as extended by letter agreement on May13, 2009 (collectively, the “Agreement”).

 

WHEREAS, Mission is the licensee of television broadcast stations KCIT, Amarillo, Texas and KCPN-LP, Amarillo, Texas;

 

WHEREAS, Nexstar, as successor to Quorum Broadcasting of Amarillo, LLC, is the licensee of television broadcasting station KAMR-TV, Amarillo, Texas; 

 

WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar have entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit;

 

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1. Paragraph 4(g) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place: “4(g) Services Fee. In consideration for the services to be provided to the Stations by Nexstar personnel as described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f), Mission will pay Nexstar the fee (“Services Fee”) described in Section 4(g).

 

(i)Base Amount. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 4(g), the base amount of the Services Fee will be $83,333.33 per month.

 

(ii) Payment Terms. The Services Fee will be payable monthly, in arrears, from and after the month during which this Agreement is executed, and will be prorated on a daily basis for the first and last months during which the sharing arrangements described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f) are in effect.” 

 

2.These revised payment terms are effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.

 

3. As so amended, all sections and provisions of the Agreement are hereby ratified in full. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date above.

 


			
	
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

 
	
 
	
MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

	
By: /s/ Thomas E. Carter
	
 
	
By: /s/ Dennis Thatcher

	
 

Name: Thomas E. Carter
	
 
	
 

Name: Dennis Thatcher

	
 

Title: EVP & Chief Financial Officer
	
 
	
 

Title: President
tube-ex102_466.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

Amendment No. 1 to Offer Letter

The undersigned, Robert Gatto (“you”) and TubeMogul, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby agree that, effective as of March 30, 2016, the one-time cash starting bonus in the amount of $100,000 contemplated in Section 5 of that certain employment Agreement dated February 1, 2016 (the “Offer Letter”) shall be subject to the clawback provision set forth below.  All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Offer Letter.

If you voluntarily terminate your employment with the Company for any reason or your employment with the Company is terminated by the Company for Cause on or before March 30, 2017 (the first anniversary of your appointment as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer), you shall repay to the Company an amount equal to $100,000 multiplied by the fraction, the numerator of which is 365 less the number of days during which you were employed by the Company, and the denominator of which is 365. If applicable, you agree to make this repayment in full within 90 days of the termination of your employment, and you further authorize the Company to immediately offset against and reduce any amounts otherwise due to you from the Company for any amounts owing from you to the Company in repaying the starting bonus.

The Offer Letter remains in full force and effect as modified herein.

 

TubeMogul, Inc.

 

By:  /s/ Brett Wilson

Its: CEO

 

 

 

/s/ Robert C. Gatto
Robert Gatto