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

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the finan-
cial statements for American Tax-Exempt Bond Trust and is qualified in its en-
tirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000916824
<NAME> American Tax-Exempt Bond Trust
<MULTIPLIER>                    1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          726,567
<SECURITIES>                    27,191,567
<RECEIVABLES>                   181,696
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  28,099,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,351,501
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      26,748,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    28,099,830
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,134,075
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                608,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,525,735
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,525,735
<EPS-BASIC>                   0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 28, 2016 521429 

________________________________

In the Matter of ROBERT 

WILSON,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner

of Corrections and 

Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 6, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Robert Wilson, Romulus, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady

of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr.,

J.), entered October 23, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding

petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During the course of an investigation, correction officials

discovered that petitioner had utilized the prison telephone

system in a conspiracy to smuggle marihuana into the correctional

facility. The conspiracy involved having a correction officer

obtain the marihuana from petitioner's wife and bring it into the

facility. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior

report with smuggling, conspiring to possess drugs and violating

a facility telephone directive. He was found guilty of the
-2- 521429 

charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the

determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal with a

modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding challenging the determination and, following joinder

of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This appeal

ensued. 

Petitioner's primary contention is that he was improperly

denied the right to have the correction officer who was allegedly

part of the conspiracy testify at the hearing. The record

discloses that the Hearing Officer made a number of attempts to

contact this officer by telephone and, when the officer called

back during the confidential portion of the hearing, the officer

indicated that he would not testify. The Hearing Officer

thereafter advised petitioner that the officer was a suspended

employee who had refused to testify, and petitioner responded

"alright" and signed a witness refusal form. Significantly,

petitioner did not object to the officer's refusal to testify or

request that the Hearing Officer conduct a further inquiry into

such refusal at the hearing. In view of this, his claim has not

been preserved for our review (see Matter of Cooperider v

Annucci, 128 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2015]; Matter of Rafi v Venettozzi,

120 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2014]). Petitioner's remaining argument has

also not been preserved by appropriate objection.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ.,

concur.
-3- 521429 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Raoul A. GALAN, petitioner, v. Larry GEGENHEIMER, et al.

No. 18-7999.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Brian TATE, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 18-6093.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         866,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,268,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,145,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,671,000
<PP&E>                                       1,285,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 760,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,251,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,218,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,796,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (5,861,000)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,408,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,364,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,258,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,242,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             827,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,379,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,379,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,379,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AffinityGroup, Inc., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Affinity Group, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures, (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:

 

(a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
|                      |                       |
|---------------------------|----------------------------|
| Date: August 8, 2008 |  /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe  |
|                      | Thomas F. Wolfe            |
|                      | Senior  Vice President and |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
GTC TELECOM CORP.
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To  the  Board  of  Directors
GTC  Telecom  Corp.  and  Subsidiaries


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-88521, 333-94969, 333-37496,
333-73614  and  333-81898)  of  our  report  dated  August  25, 2005, except for
paragraph  5  of  such  report  and Note 14, as to which the date is October 31,
2005,  appearing  in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of GTC Telecom Corp. and
subsidiaries  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  2005.



/s/ Squar, Milner, Reehl & Williamson, LLP



Newport  Beach,  California
November  1,  2005
Ikemefula Charles IBEABUCHI, petitioner, v. ARIZONA

No. 18-8551.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2320

___________ Beverly Ryan Deering, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 2000 Filed: January 21, 2000

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Beverly Ryan Deering appeals the district court's dismissal of Deering's employment-relat ed race discrimination claim. Deering, a Caucasian female, was employedas a specialist in the Army's Equal Employment Opportunity Office (EEO office) at Fort Leonard Wood. To eliminate strife and improve teamwork, the commanding officer decided to replace the three specialists assigned to the EEO office. Deering was reassigned as a budget analyst without any reduction in pay or benefits. Several months later, Deering contacted an EEO counselor, raising for the first time the claim that her assignment was racially motivated. Later, when Deering brought her-2-

employment discrimination lawsuit in the district court, the Secretary of the Army moved to dismiss the complaint based on Deering's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In granting the Secretary's motion, the district court concluded Deering failedtimely to exhaust her administrative remedies and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify equitable tolling.
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under a well-established standard. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied that the magistrate judge correctly applied the controlling legal principles, and the record supports the magistrate judge's ruling. Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court, we believe that an extended discussion about the magistrate judge's proper application of the controlling law in a factual framework that is unique to these parties will serve no useful precedential value. We thus affirm on the basis of the magistrate judge's well-reasoned decision without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Sontay T. SMOTHERMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6108.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Rashod LEWIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5899.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Michael B. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Stephen MAYBERG, Warden.

No. 18-5070.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Paul Ross EVANS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1103.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Ronald Eric ARY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6042.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Jeremiah Harris Spencer, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00085

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 355th District Court of Hood County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR11397 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Jeremiah Harris Spencer, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDE RED AUGUST 7, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/13/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       65,224
COMMITMENTS
   8,749    2,483        0   51,701   60,186   60,450   62,669    4,774    2,555

CHANGES FROM 11/06/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,773)
   1,782     -964        0       57    2,702    1,839    1,738      -66       35

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    13.4      3.8      0.0     79.3     92.3     92.7     96.1      7.3      3.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       73)
      13        3        0       37       32       50       35
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/13/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      119,236
COMMITMENTS
  23,393   18,982    1,576   81,796   94,414  106,765  114,972   12,471    4,264

CHANGES FROM 11/06/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,493)
     485     -310      -10    1,178    2,610    1,653    2,290      840      203

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    19.6     15.9      1.3     68.6     79.2     89.5     96.4     10.5      3.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      127)
      41       12        6       54       38       97       54
```

----

Updated November 16, 2012
Cirilo FLORES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8912.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

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



Exhibit 10.45



AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 
THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), dated March 10, 2019 and effective January 1, 2019, is made by and between VISHAY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, LTD (the “Company”), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Israel and a wholly-owned subsidiary of VISHAY PRECISION GROUP, INC. a Delaware corporation (“VPG”), and ZIV SHOSHANI (the “Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to an employment agreement, dated November 17, 2010, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”);
WHEREAS, Section 8.5 of the Employment Agreement provides that the Company and the Executive may amend the Employment Agreement by mutual agreement in writing; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived here from and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.    Section 4.4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by revising the first sentence thereof to read as follows:
“Beginning with the Company’s 2019 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter during the Term, VPG shall grant Executive an annual equity award under VPG’s 2010 Stock Incentive Program (or any successor plan or arrangement thereof) having a value approximately equal to 175% of Executive’s Base Salary on such date (the “Annual Equity Grant”).”  
2.    Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
3.    This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and Executive has executed this Amendment, in each case on the 10th day of March, 2019.
VISHAY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, LTD
By:    /s/ Amir Tal
Amir Tal
Title:    Senior Vice President
ZIV SHOSHANI 
    /s/ Ziv Shoshani
In Re Jaame AMUN RE EL, petitioner.

No. 18-5976.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
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 GTC Telecom Corp. Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, S. Paul Sandhu, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer  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, to the best of
my  knowledge:

(1)     Fully  complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and

(2)     The  information  contained  in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents  in  all  material  respects  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations  of  the  Company.





By:  /s/  S.  PAUL  SANDHU
          S.  PAUL  SANDHU
Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Director
September  28,  2004



A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required  by  Section  906,  has  been provided to GTC Telecom Corp. and will be
retained  by  GTC  Telecom  Corp.  and  furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
Tate CLARK, petitioner, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY.

No. 18-353.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
In Re Vincent W. ALDRIDGE, et ux., petitioners.

No. 17-7830.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Livingston MANNERS, petitioner, v. Ronald CANNELLA, et al.

No. 18-6908.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Tim HASKIN, petitioner, v. US AIRWAYS, et al.

No. 17-8960.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ike Shawndale NUNN, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 17-9422.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Kyrt M. WENTZELL, et al., petitioners, v. BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED, et al.

No. 18-95.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.