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

<ARTICLE>                                           5

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                           397
<SECURITIES>                                                       1
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   7431
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    (166)
<INVENTORY>                                                     4674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               12787
<PP&E>                                                         15941
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 (7674)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 25779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          12646
<BONDS>                                                         5914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                          49
<OTHER-SE>                                                      6995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   25779
<SALES>                                                         7027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                7045
<CGS>                                                           5712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   5712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  164
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              108
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     108
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.02



</TABLE>
Exhibit 3(i).3

                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                     VIDEO INTERNET BROADCASTING CORPORATION

                  ARTICLE I. NAME; REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT

         The name of this corporation shall be Video Internet Broadcasting
Corporation (the "Corporation"). The registered office of the Corporation shall
be at 19110 66th Avenue South, #G-105, Kent, Washington 98032, and its
registered agent at such address is W. Kelly Ryan.

                               ARTICLE II PURPOSE

         The Corporation shall have the power to engage in and carry on any
lawful business or trade and exercise all powers granted to a corporation formed
under the Washington Business Corporation Act, Title 23B of the Revised Code of
Washington (the "Washington Act"), including any amendments thereto or successor
statute that may hereinafter be enacted.

                               ARTICLE III. SHARES

         Section 3.1. AUTHORIZED CAPITAL

         The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of capital stock to
be designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock." The total
number of shares of capital stock that the Corporation shall have authority to
issue is fifty million (50,000,000), consisting of thirty million (30,000,000)
shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, and twenty million
(20,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, $0.001 par value per share. The first
series of Preferred Stock shall be designated "Series A Preferred Stock" and
shall consist of three hundred one thousand (301,000) shares.

         Section 3.2.  ISSUANCE OF PREFERRED STOCK IN SERIES

         The undesignated Preferred Stock may be issued from time to time in one
or more series in any manner permitted by law and the provisions of these
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation (the "Articles of
Incorporation"), as determined from time to time by the Board of Directors of
the Corporation (the "Board of Directors") and stated in the resolution or
resolutions providing for the issuance thereof, prior to the issuance of any
shares thereof. The Board of Directors shall have the authority to fix and
determine and to amend, subject to these provisions, the designation,
preferences, limitations, and relative rights of the shares of any series that
is wholly unissued or to be established. Unless otherwise specifically provided
in the resolution establishing any series, the Board of Directors shall further
have the authority, after the issuance of shares of a series whose number it has
designated, to amend the resolution establishing such series to decrease the
number of shares of that series, but not below the number of shares of such
series then outstanding. In case the number of shares of any series shall be so
decreased, the shares constituting such decrease shall resume the status which
they had prior to the adoption of the resolution originally fixing the number of
shares of such series.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

.: 
with the Comt,v Clerk. Toe Coxzissioners’ Court sI.,s,ll 

approve such eoccnnt for such amunt se thw find to be 

correct, sad order a drsft to be issued upon the County 

Trsasurer in favor of such Judge or Justice for the 

aaount so approved. Provided the Commissioners’ Cow-t 

shall not pfg auy account or trisl fees in any aase 

trlsd and in which an naqulttsl is had unless the Stat? 

of Texas VRI~ represented In the trial of said c8use by 

the Caunty Attornay, or hir usihmnt, Criqinml IN&flat 

Attorn~ or MS urfstmnt, Ma the cutlfi~to Ol'sda 

Attorney ir atfuhd to #ala Mooant owti~ to the 

fmt that saia asxs+ vu tr1.d. Md the stats of sarr 

vu mprmsM2ma, alla t&t la hir Jnagawt than w8 8mfw 

aiant cviaonoo Ln uiacmusteadatrlal of WI.* 

Artiol* 1074,‘codq d urialMl Recoaun pswladt thati 

Axti~le lO’74, Code of Criminal P roaednm* Shwo Queta 

6oa.h not vlth the qwaetLon 02 fees to be paId to the Mw 

$udgo, or the Judge of the court at &u, of the &etloa of thr 

poaosr but rather tith thb nWer of costs to be Ohmmd aad a+ 

l eUrd m,$ainst the aSfS&Iit aomictid in a Crfminst aattOX&. It 

pnwldar that the trial fee in the county smut or a acrantf a& 

at lav ahdl be $6.00, nnd the trial fee in the justice aat& &all 
be $4.00. And that "the sme to be collected and paid over in the 

saw manrisr as ia the owe of a jury fee.” This meaus that IJU& 

fw o f $ 4 .00 l hsll be paid over to the county treaeursr end out of 

moh mu the jnetiae of the peace ahall receive the ena of $3.00 

la eonntia of less them 20,000 population and the mm of $2.50 in 

caqltiea of more thaa 20,000 polmletion, ae provided by Article 

1062. C. C. F.~ In like manner the $6.00 fee shall be paid over 

to tha calnty t reutuer and out of such @ii the ccxtnt~ &id@ or the 

~~t&uatirr~rwdntho~~~.00roplpridrd is mm0 u#a, a. 0. ‘r. 

am Tot- 2s. lam. tua aepwhat bo+ln a lmttor 

oplnlaa Be. o-l%66 vrlttan ar nr. Yapa &wtmn&* lurf*tsat rttolc 

aq aamral, to Hen. Loo 0; aaeklw, aoaatp Attolaq, zopeta &mat& 

slam, tht uun 18 99 00ai0t bt~0018 mw0 usa ma utfdk 

lq?~~ofarialMlmaoan?s. 

Tar arm k&at* &wl ti8t it la the aptntar of thlr 

Be&w& fl$aw&&t’ PQ~ oeafllet botmm Artlok.la6a aDcAttlch 

E+rcaawaEathat.M~aosab ocaoel. 

otG;rulmwaure sata tha f*e 4w e ownty JsAm0 or l Jpscr 6f 

tha oaap* oaut at- la, Ma *ti+la ,qf the peaccia orlmhlal OUY 

ml&+ fiully aiapoama of befar thQm* '. 

Ton are fnrther aavi8ma th& Artlole m4r .aoae ef as 

?neod8ro4ouaotae6Adtl~the~ttonolfoq teb0pLtatsu-m 

~~,orr~dt~~~oarrrbrt~,~tb,jruticr 

d the paMe. but rather of oMt8 to &o dtW#M 8M u8ud wt 

th adrobat aamieted In a m*rlaJ rotlen+ 

irarting that the ~forrgoiag smswm acrai h&W* m rada
Dwight E. JORDAN, petitioner, v. CITY OF DARIEN, GEORGIA, et al.

No. 17-1455.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**899 KA 13-00584**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN FARMER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered February 15, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. We note at the outset that we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because, inter alia, County Court “improperly conflate[d] the waiver of the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea” ( People v Bentley , 63 AD3d 1624, 1625, lv denied 13 NY3d 742; see People v Moyett , 7 NY3d 892, 893; People v Campbell , 62 AD3d 1265, 1266, lv denied 13 NY3d 795). Nevertheless, “[a]lthough defendant’s contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered thus is not precluded by the invalid waiver, he failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” ( People v Jones , 118 AD3d 1354, 1354, lv denied 24 NY3d 961; see People v Wilson , 117 AD3d 1476, 1477). Defendant likewise failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution ( see People v Lopez
, 71 NY2d 662, 665), and this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation rule ( see id. at 666). In addition, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to assign him new counsel inasmuch as defendant informed the court that he was attempting to retain new counsel but never sought substitution of his assigned counsel ( see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, defendant failed to show good cause for substitution of his assigned attorney inasmuch**-2- 899 KA 13-00584** 
as his objections to his assigned counsel were vague and unsubstantiated ( see People v Linares , 2 NY3d 507, 511; see also People v Santiago , 111 AD3d 1383, 1384, lv denied 23 NY3d 1025).

Finally, although defendant’s invalid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of his sentence ( see e.g. People v Davis , 114 AD3d 1166, 1167, lv denied 23 NY3d 1035; People v Williams , 46 AD3d 1424, 1425), we reject that challenge.

Entered: October 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 6

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 59-8 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1044
App. 051
App. 052
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ALEXANDRA DAVIS,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v. 

JERRAL W. JONES, DALLAS COWBOYS 

FOOTBALL CLUB, LTD., JAMES 

WILKINSON, TRAILRUNNER 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DONALD JACK, 

JR.,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,

&

CYNTHIA DAVIS-SPENCER,

 Third-Party Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00032-RWS

AMENDED ORDER

Before the Court is Third-Party Witness Lisa Duffee, Esq.’s Objections, Motion to Quash, 

and Request for Protection. Docket No. 76. Duffee alleges that the Defendants in this matter served 

her with a subpoena titled “Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information or Objects or to Permit 

Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action.” Id. Duffee first asks the Court for additional time to 

comply with Defendants’ subpoena, but then (1) objects to Defendants’ overly broad document

request, (2) seeks relief from having to produce a privilege log, and (3) seeks to quash a deposition. 

Id. Duffee does not attach the subpoena or provide specific objections to Defendants’ discovery 

requests. It is also unclear whether Duffee is seeking additional time to comply with the subpoena 

or relief from compliance with the subpoena. Absent the discovery documents and sufficient 

argument by movant, the Court cannot rule on the merits of this motion. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that Third-Party Witness Lisa Duffee, Esq.’s Objections, Motion to Quash, 

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 78 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1289
Page 2 of 2

and Request for Production (Docket No. 76) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

REFILING. It is further 

ORDERED that should Third-Party Witness Lisa Duffee choose to refile this motion, 

she must do so by 12 p.m. CDT on Tuesday, April 16, 2024. If the motion is refiled, the Court 

may order expedited briefing. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of April, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 78 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1290
IB

House Calendar No. 210

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1729

[Report No. 106–587]

To designate the Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street in

Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 6, 1999

Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. WOLF, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. SCOTT,

Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. BATEMAN, and Mr.

MORAN of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

APRIL 13, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet

Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Pamela B.

Gwin Hall’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1729 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PAMELA B. GWIN HALL.

2 The Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street

3 in Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.
House Calendar No. 210

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1729

[Report No. 106–587]

A BILL

To designate the Federal facility located at 1301

Emmet Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the‘‘Pamela B. Gwin Hall’’.

APRIL 13, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Shabnam DASTMALCHIAN, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

No. 18-405.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Edwin HERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6308.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Anthony Leroy DAVIS, petitioner, v. KANSAS.

No. 18M165.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Dmitri I. MEDVEDEV, petitioner, v. HENRICOCOUNTY.

No. 18-437.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/11/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       42,959
COMMITMENTS
   1,075   12,361    1,356   39,786   28,534   42,217   42,251      742      708

CHANGES FROM 12/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,551)
      36      962       64    3,539    2,636    3,639    3,662      -88     -111

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     2.5     28.8      3.2     92.6     66.4     98.3     98.4      1.7      1.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       46)
       8       10        5       22       21       32       34`

---

Updated December 14, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC. and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., 

LTD.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung 

Electronics Company, Ltd.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) Unopposed Motion for Extension to 

Respond to Complaint. Dkt. No. 26.

After consideration, the Court GRANTS the motion. It is therefore ORDERED that the 

deadline for Samsung to move, answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Headwater Research 

LLC’s Complaint is July 10, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 07/04/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 875
Charles E. WOIDE, et ux., petitioners, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION.

No. 18-244.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
FEDERAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION

                 Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     For the Three Months Ended                For the Six Months Ended
                                                             November 30,                             November 30,
                                               -------------------------------------     ------------------------------------
                                                    1998                 1997                 1998                1997
                                               ----------------    -----------------     ----------------    ----------------

<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                   <C>                 <C>    
Shares  outstanding:                               493,500              493,500              493,500             493,500
Weighted average shares outstanding                493,500              493,500              493,500             493,500
Net income (loss)                              $       (76)        $     10,130          $     1,899         $     6,912

Net income (loss) per common share             $     (0.00)        $       0.02          $     0.004         $      0.01

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

 (Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except for per share amounts)

A reconciliation of basic and diluted EPS is given in the following table:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Amount per
Three months ended June 30, 2000             Income          Shares        Share
--------------------------------           ----------      ----------    ----------

<S>                                        <C>             <C>           <C>
Basic EPS                                  $    3,476      25,033,932      $0.14
Effect of Dilutive Options                                    112,126
Diluted EPS                                $    3,476      25,146,058      $0.14

Three months ended June 30, 1999
--------------------------------

Basic EPS                                  $    2,913      25,033,932      $0.12
Effect of Dilutive Options                                    956,283
Diluted EPS                                $    2,913      25,990,215      $0.11

===================================================================================

Six months ended June 30, 2000
------------------------------

Basic EPS                                  $   13,287      25,033,932      $0.53
Effect of Dilutive Options                                     89,882
Diluted EPS                                $   13,287      25,123,814      $0.53

Six months ended June 30, 1999
------------------------------

Basic EPS                                  $   18,129      25,033,932      $0.72
Effect of Dilutive Options                                  1,047,524
Diluted EPS                                $   18,129      26,081,456      $0.70
===================================================================================
</TABLE>



                                       15
George M. WANG, petitioner, v. Andrei IANCU, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.

No. 18-371.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Colette MARQUIS, petitioner, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al.

No. 18-6217.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**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 the Annual Report of China World Trade Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
H.W. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 
 April 14,
2005
 
 CHINA
WORLD TRADE CORPORATION
 
 
 
 By:  /s/
John H.W. Hui
 John H.W.
Hui, Chief Executive Officer
Hamid R. ASSADIAN, petitioner, v. Reza PARSI, et al.

No. 17-1626.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.