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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,564,794
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  220,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,785,056
<PP&E>                                      50,631,214
<DEPRECIATION>                              44,179,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,236,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,006
<BONDS>                                      2,508,719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,577,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,236,903
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               814,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,020,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,803
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                262,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            262,949
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   262,949
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Wilson Company, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. Robert Francis Brush and New York Life Insurance Company, a Corporation, *Appellees.*

Division A.

Decision filed April 22, 1929.

*621
      *G. B. Layton*and *H. L.*Gray, for Appellant;

*Howard B. Hodgden,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
John Francis ARPINO, petitioner, v. WASHOE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al.

No. 17-5247.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nevada denied.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60316

Summary Calendar

Martin Escobedo Andrade, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 068 278

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Martin Escobedo Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming 

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of 

removal. Escobedo Andrade contends that the IJ erred in finding that he 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60316 Document: 00516301952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
No. 21-60316

2

failed to demonstrate that his removal would cause exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship to his children and that he lacked good moral 

character. 

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to 

the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th 

Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal 

determinations are reviewed de novo. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 

774 (5th Cir. 2021). Cancellation of removal is available to applicants who 

have been continuously present in the United States for 10 or more years 

prior to filing an application, who can establish good moral character during 

that time, who have no disqualifying convictions, and whose spouse, 

children, or parent would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship 

if the applicant were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 

Despite Escobedo Andrade’s assertions to the contrary, the 

consequences facing his children if he were removed are not “‘substantially’ 

beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family 

member leaves this country.” Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775 (quoting In Re 

Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001)). While he claims that 

the IJ misconstrued the evidence in determining that his wife could find 

work; his sister could provide support to his children; and that his oldest son 

does not have a significant medical condition, these findings are supported 

by substantial evidence. See Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 774. Because 

resolution of this issue is dispositive as to his lack of eligibility for cancellation 

of removal, see § 1229b(b)(1), we need not consider his argument regarding 

whether the IJ erred in determining that he failed to establish that he was in 

possession of good moral character. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 

(1976). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 21-60316 Document: 00516301952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
Terry DAVIS, aka Mace, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7243.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   0.70
<CASH>                                         804,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,314,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,154,343
<PP&E>                                       4,789,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                 418,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,066,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,704,057
<BONDS>                                      7,380,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,302,678
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,400,000<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,066,660
<SALES>                                      4,817,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,817,977
<CGS>                                        2,893,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,893,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,919,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             515,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,509,815)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,509,815)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,509,815)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)
<FN>
<F1>of this amount, $4.9 million is convertible debenture (face amount $6.0
million) which will be converted into common stock effective 31 January 1998,
subject to shareholder approval.
<F2>Amount of equity value arizing from convertible feature of L-T Debt.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ _____________ ____________________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 14, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 136177 & (78) Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices

DAVID CHAMNESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 136177 v COA: 267691 Kalamazoo CC: 04-000658-AV MATTHEW S. DEPERNO, Defendant-Appellee,

and

STEPHEN J. HESSEN, STEPHEN l. SIMONS, J. RYAN CONBOY and KREIS, ENDERLE, CALLANDER & HUDGINS, P.C., Defendants.

On order of the Chief Justice, a s tipulation signed by th e attorneys for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 14, 2008

Clerk
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Larry James LANDRY.

No. D-3019.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
Antonio MINNIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1310.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 11
                           LAW COMPANIES GROUP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                 For the Quarter Ended
                                                -----------------------
                                                 March 31,    March 31,
                                                   1997         1996
                                                ----------   ----------
 
<S>                                             <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                                 $  906       $ (236)
                                                  ======       ======
 
Average number of shares of capital
 stock outstanding                                 1,898        1,903
 
 
Assuming exercise of options based on
 the treasury stock method using
 average market price                                 --           --
                                                  ------       ------
Average number of primary shares of
 capital stock outstanding                         1,898        1,903
                                                  ======       ======
 
 Primary earnings (loss) per share                $  .48       $ (.12)
                                                  ======       ======
 
 
Average number of shares of capital
 stock outstanding                                 1,898        1,903
 
 
Assuming exercise of options based on
 the treasury stock method using
 end of period market price                          --           --
                                                  ------       ------
 
Average number of shares of capital
 stock outstanding assuming full
 dilution                                          1,898        1,903
                                                  ======       ======
 
 
Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share           $  .48       $ (.12)
                                                  ======       ======
</TABLE>

                                       12
#4110-98 (4-98-CV-0140A)

For Release: February 18, 1998

CFTC FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST JACK DWIGHT CULLEN OF
    PARADISE, TEXAS, ALLEGING THAT HE COMMITTED A $174,000 COMMODITY FRAUD AND
    OBTAINS AN EX PARTE ASSET FREEZE

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that on February 13, 1998, it filed a four-count injunctive complaint
    against Jack Dwight Cullen of Paradise, Texas, in the U.S. District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, and that the
    Honorable John H. McBryde entered a restraining order freezing Cullen's
    assets, prohibiting him from destroying any of his books and records and
    requiring him to make the books and records available for inspection and
    copying by the CFTC.

The complaint alleges that from at least December 1996 until the
    present, Cullen defrauded at least three investors who had invested at
    least $174,000 in a commodity pool Cullen operated. The complaint charges
    that, in operating this pool, Cullen violated the anti-fraud provisions of
    the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by, among other things:

-- misappropriating funds received from investors;

-- misrepresenting to investors that their funds would be used only to
    trade commodity futures when they were not;

-- falsely representing to investors the profitability of his trading
    activity; and

-- falsely advertising that trading profits were guaranteed.

The complaint also charges that Cullen violated CFTC regulations by
    failing to operate his commodity pool as a legal entity separate from
    himself, accepting funds in his own name and not in the name of a commodity
    pool, commingling pool assets with his own and engaging in false
    advertising. The complaint seeks the entry of an order enjoining Cullen
    from further violations of the CEA and the regulations, an accounting,
    disgorgement of all benefits received, restitution to the defrauded
    investors and a civil monetary penalty.

In addition to entering the restraining order, the court scheduled a
    hearing on the CFTC's motion for preliminary injunction for February 23,
    1998 at 8:30 a.m.

The Commission appreciates the assistance of the National Futures
    Association in this matter.
In Re John V. COLEN, petitioner.

No. 17-7918.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Quincy SIMS, petitioner, v. C. LESINAK.

No. 15-9529.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# L_2006333EN.01003501.xml

| 30.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 333/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 333/35

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 114/2006

of 22 September 2006

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2006 of 7 July 2006 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2006 of 7 July 2006 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1916/2005 of 24 November 2005 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1916/2005 of 24 November 2005 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 54b (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 R 1916: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1916/2005 of 24 November 2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 10).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 R 1916: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1916/2005 of 24 November 2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 10).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1916/2005 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 23 September 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 289, 19.10.2006, p. 10.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 10.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Michael YOUNG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8415.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

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

Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT to the 
Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999 between William H. Spell and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc.

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of August 20, 2001, by and between William H. Spell (the Employee) and PW
Eagle, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. (Eagle).

WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to
that certain Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999, as amended December 15, 1999 (the Agreement).

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement effective August  20, 2001 to take into account the resolutions adopted by Eagles
Board of Directors at its meeting on such date.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual
agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

| | 1. | The term of the Agreement as referenced in Section 1 shall be through December 31, 2004.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                         
| | 2. | Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.          

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

|PW EAGLE, INC.                         |  |                    
|-------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|(the Company)                        |  |                    
|                                       |  |                    
|By: /s/ Bruce A.
Richard               |  | /s/William H. Spell
|Its: Vice Chairman, Board of Directors |  | (the Employee)   
|                                       |  |                    

|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
|
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 11082 Summary Calendar

ROBERT ALEXANDER DUBOSE

,

Plaintiff

–

Appellant

, v ersus

GILBERT GOMEZ, Correctional Officer II, Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity; ROBERTO TARIN, Lieutenant, Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity; OLIVER VASQUEZ, Sergeant, Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity; NFN ALONZO, Sergeant, Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity; NFN BERTERSON, Correctional Officer, Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Indivi dual Capacity; BETTERTON STEVEN

,

Defendant s

– Appellee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CV

- 193 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 16, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11082 Document: 00513801151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016No. 15

- 11082

2 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Du B ose, Texas prisoner # 01880528, sued five correctional offi

cers alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from a use of force. The district
court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of qualified
immunity and the absence of any genuine issue of m aterial fact that any defen

dant had violated Du B ose’s Eighth Amendment rights. Du B ose appeals.

We review a summary judgment de novo. See, e.g.

, Mason v. Lafayette
City

- Parish Consol. Gov ’t , 806 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2015). To preserve an

issue for r eview, the appellant must adequately brief it and “engage the issue
on the basis of binding precedent

. ” See United States v. Scrog gins , 599 F.3d
433, 446

– 47 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2010) ; see also F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8) . Du B ose’s
perfunctory counseled brief i s not entitled to liberal con struc tion, see Beasley

v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986), and it fails to meet this court’s

standards for appellate briefing and fails properly to raise any issue for appeal

. See Scroggins , 599 F.3d at 446

– 47.

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 15-11082 Document: 00513801151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
James ARLOTTA, petitioner, v. COOK MOVING SYSTEM, INC., et al.

No. 17-8627.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS, Petitioner v. Matthew Jack Dwight VOGT.

No. 16-1495.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

David R. Cooper, Lauren Laushman, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith LLP, Topeka, KS, John T. Bird, City Attorney, Glassman, Bird, Brown, & Powell LLP, Hays, KS, Toby J. Heytens, Daniel R. Ortiz, University of Virginia, School of Law, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA, for Petitioner.

Morgan L. Roach, McCauley & Roach, LLC, Kansas City, MO, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Thomas M. Bondy, Benjamin Chagnon, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Daniel A. Rubens, Alison M. Kilmartin, Haley Jankowski, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent.

*1684PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

*It is so ordered.*

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.