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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
DECEMBER 25, 1999 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOSS HOLDINGS, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 25, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-25-1999                     DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  DEC-27-1998                     DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-25-1999                     DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                            3,997,000                       2,131,000
<SECURITIES>                              0                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                     7,237,000                       6,939,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        464,000                         455,000
<INVENTORY>                       9,700,000                      13,777,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 21,118,000                      23,093,000
<PP&E>                            5,145,000                       4,743,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            0                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   26,292,000                      28,970,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             6,786,000                       4,640,000
<BONDS>                                   0                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                               0
<PREFERRED>                               0                               0
<COMMON>                            484,000                         486,000
<OTHER-SE>                       17,206,000                      19,349,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     26,292,000                      28,970,000
<SALES>                          36,024,000                      37,543,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 36,024,000                      37,543,000
<CGS>                            25,767,000                      26,762,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    12,047,000                      10,739,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 (1,164,000)                        (18,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 (1,100,000)                        893,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  412,000                         381,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (2,138,000)                        572,000
<INCOME-TAX>                         18,000                         (68,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,156,000)                        640,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                               0
<CHANGES>                                 0                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,156,000)                        640,000
<EPS-BASIC>                           (1.11)                           0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.11)                           0.33



</TABLE>
Benjamin BLAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6791.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*844Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
(110 So. 340)

No. 28104.

#### RAYNE STATE BANK v. MOUTON. In re HIBERNIA BANK & TRUST CO.

(Nov. 2, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

1. Witnesses &wkey;>l6.

Even party to litigation cannot be compelled to transport books and papers, from one parish to another, and a fortiori third persons cannot be compelled to do so.

2. Witnesses &wkey;>16 — Sworn copies of books and papers may be procured from third person by litigant, at his own expense, and used in his defense in another parish where necessary.

Litigant is entitled to interrogate adverse party or third person as to contents of material books or papers, and to procure, at his own expense, sworn copies thereof, and such copies may be used by defendant in another parish where necessary to his defense.

Original prohibition by the Hibernia Bank & Trust Company against the district court in the parish of Lafayette, for relief against an order obtained by Eernand Mouton, defendant, in a suit in which the Rayne State Bank was plaintiff, requiring relator to produce before said court certain books, papers, documents, and, writings in relator’s possession.

Writ 'granted.

Dufour, Goldberg & Kammer, of New Orleans (Justin V. Wolff, of New Orleans, of counsel), for relator Hibernia Bank & 'Trust Co.

Burke & Smith, of New Iberia, for respondent.

ST. PAUL, J.

In a suit pending between plaintiff and defendant, in the parish of Lafayette, the defendant sought and obtained an order directing the relator, Hibernia Bank & Trust Company, to produce before the district court in said parish of Lafayette, certain books, papers, documents, and writings then in the possession of said relator at its domicile in the parish of Orleans; and the trial judge being about to insist upon compliance with his said order, the relator applied to this court for relief by writ of prohibition.

I.

[1] It is well settled that even a party to the litigation cannot be compelled, to transport his books, papers, documents, and writings from one parish to another; and a fortiori third persons cannot be compelled to do so. Cooper v. Polk, 2 La. Ann. 158; Ludeling v. Frellsen, 4 La. Ann. 534; Murison v. Butler, 18 La. Ann. 296; Cain v. Pullen, 34 La. Ann. 511; La. Farm Bureau v. Bacon, 159 La. 169, 105 So. 278.

II.

[2] The defendant complains that such a rule denies him the right to obtain evidence necessary for his defense, to which he would otherwise be entitled; but “it is well settled in such cases, that sworn copies of the papers desired wall suffice.” Cain v. Pullen, 34 La. *253Ann. 511, 515, citing 2 La. Ann. 158, 4 La. Ann. 534, and 18 La. Ann. 296, all supra. And nothing said in Cain v. Pullen, supra, about the objection to compelling a party to leave bis boobs and papers with a commissioner “for an indefinite time” to be examined by whosoever will, conflicts with the undoubted right of a litigant to interrogate the other party or a third person as to the contents of material boobs and papers, and to procure (at his own expense) sworn copies thereof.

Decree.

It is therefore ordered that the writ of prohibition herein issued he now made perpetual ; defendant to pay the costs hereof.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Aug-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Aug-02-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,244,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  -750,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,171,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,918,000
<PP&E>                                      16,921,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              -8,012,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,879,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,680,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,875,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,879,000
<SALES>                                     24,889,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,499,000
<CGS>                                       11,350,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,634,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               148,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             993,000
<LOSS-PRETAX>                               (2,276,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<LOSS-CONTINUING>                           (2,276,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-LOSS>                                  (2,276,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
Joseph A. CLARK, petitioner, v. Eileen RAMEY, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.

No. 18-6178.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
William Shane REID, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18M52.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,097                  43,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,478,957              21,851,399
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         40,439,706              60,536,271
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,922,742              82,431,167
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                   3,239,924               3,324,329
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,682,768              79,106,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,922,742              82,431,167
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              508,869               6,693,370
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         3,263,074               5,434,851
<COMMISSIONS>                                3,969,972               6,159,359
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (608,196)               4,089,639
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (608,196)               4,089,639
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   578,758                 929,254
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.05)                    4.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)                    4.40


</TABLE>
Alexandra NORWOOD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8386.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Patricia Ann GERALD, et al., petitioners, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 18-6814.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Aaron FRANCOIS, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18-9074.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Peter SAUERS, petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER SOUTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-1547.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*88Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2078

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in the textile

industry.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1999

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used

in the textile industry.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.61.06 Phosphonic acid,(1-

hydroxyethylidene)bis-,

tetrasodium salt (CAS

No. 3794–83–0) (provided for in subheading

2931.00.9030) ............. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2001 ’’.
2

•HR 2078 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
No. 6:23-cr-00065-12

United States of America

v.

Bachir Antonio Daye Raouik

ORD ER

This criminal action was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for administration of a guilty plea under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The magistrate judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued 

findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea. Doc. 199. The 

magistrate judge recommended that the court accept defendant’s 

guilty plea and adjudge defendant guilty on count one of the indictment. Id. at 2. Defendant waived his right to object to the magistrate 

judge’s findings. Id.

The court hereby accepts the findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court 

also accepts defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea 

agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with defendant’s guilty plea, the court finds defendant Bachir Antonio Daye Raouik (12) guilty of count one of the 

indictment, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to 

Operate an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business.

So ordered by the court on August 19, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cr-00065-JCB-JDL Document 206 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 914
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 7, 2022.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta*                     (Erien O. Terry, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Applications.Comments@atl.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Donata Russell Ross, H. Jerome Russell, Jr., and Michael B. Russell, all of Atlanta, Georgia;*                     to become members of a group acting in concert to acquire voting shares of Citizens Bancshares Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Citizens Trust Bank, both of Atlanta, Georgia.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-11077 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit 10.52 (a)


                   [Letterhead of Empire Carpet Corporation]
                        
                                                January 17, 1978

Miss Erika, Inc.
1410 Broadway
New York, N.Y.

Attention:  Mr. Allen Guttman

Dear Mr. Guttman:

            This letter is to act as a three-year extension of the Agreement of
Lease between the Empire Carpet Corporation as Landlord and Miss Erika, Inc. as
Tenant that was dated the first day of April 1975.

            All conditions of that Lease will remain in effect except the rent
for the first year (April 1, 1978 through March 31, 1979) will be Forty-nine
thousand six hundred eighty ($49,680.00) dollars, payable in equal monthly
installments of Four thousand one hundred forty ($4,140.00) dollars in advance.

            The second year rate will be Fifty-one thousand eight hundred forty
($51,840.00) dollars payable in equal monthly installments of Four thousand
three hundred twenty (4,320.00) dollars.

            The third year rental will be Fifty-four thousand ($54,00.00)
dollars payable in equal monthly installments of Four thousand five hundred
($4,500.00) dollars.

            The security deposit made April 1, 1975 in the amount of $6,300.00
was diminished by $3,150.00 on the eighteenth month of your original Lease. The
remaining $3,150.00 will remain with Empire as a security deposit on this
three-year extension.

            You may execute this as a contract by signing below and returning
the original and two copies to the undersigned.


                                                Very truly yours,


                                                /s/ Frank G. Hoylman

                                                Frank G. Hoylman
                                                President

MISS ERIKA, INC.


By /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
   ---------------------

Title Treasurer
      ------------------
Richard J. BAKER, petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.

No. 18-276.

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.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                       CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER
                                     MERGING
                                INSO CORPORATION
                                      WITH
                              INSO SUBSIDIARY, INC.

                         (Pursuant to Section 253 of the
                        Delaware General Corporation Law)

         Inso Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify that it
owns all the outstanding capital stock of Inso Subsidiary, Inc., a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and that
the Corporation, by resolutions of its Board of Directors duly adopted at a
meeting of the Board on the 21st day of August, 2000 determined to merge into
itself Inso Subsidiary, Inc., which resolutions were as follows:

         RESOLVED:      That it is advisable and in the best interests of the
                        Corporation to cause the merger of Inso Subsidiary,
                        Inc. with and into the Corporation (the "Merger")
                        pursuant to Section 253 of the Delaware General
                        Corporate Law; that the Merger shall be effective at
                        5 p.m. EST on August 28, 2000; that the Corporation
                        shall be the surviving corporation; and that the sole
                        purpose of Merger shall be to change the name of the
                        Corporation in its Certificate of Incorporation to
                        "eBT International, Inc.";

         RESOLVED:      That the Certificate of Incorporation and the By-laws
                        of the Corporation will remain the Certificate of
                        Incorporation and the By-laws of the Corporation
                        after the Merger except that Article I of the
                        Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation shall be
                        changed to read as follows:

                        "The name of the corporation is eBT International, Inc."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Ownership and Merger as of the 25th day of August, 2000.

                                              INSO CORPORATION


                                              By: /s/ Jonathan P. Levitt
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                   Jonathan P. Levitt,
                                                   Secretary