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

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1999
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                 1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                       2,194
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               27,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   731
<INVENTORY>                                                 32,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            65,208
<PP&E>                                                      93,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                              54,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             137,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       50,548
<BONDS>                                                    104,451
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                    16,486
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (491)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               137,800
<SALES>                                                    375,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           375,405
<CGS>                                                      316,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              366,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          15,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (7,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (7,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              (4,209)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (12,153)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (3.973)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (3.973)
<FN>
LOSS PROVISION IS INCLUDED IN SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ON
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</FN>



</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 14, 2018

NO. 03

- 18

- 00459

- CV

J. E., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFO RE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on July 11, 2018. Having reviewed the

record , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not comply with

a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses th e appeal for want of

prosecution. A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court

below.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Glas-Aire  Industries Group,
Ltd.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 (the
"Report")  I, Linda  Kwan,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated:  August 14, 2006


\s\ Linda Kwan
-----------------------------------------------------
Linda Kwan, Chief Financial Officer,

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### HELEN DORWAN v. CITY OF MOORHEAD.2

June 4, 1909.

Nos. 16,113—(125).

Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $238.31 for services as a professional nurse. Defendant in its answer tendered judgment against itself for the sum of $60. The case was tried before Baxter, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. From an order denying *524defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed.

Affirmed.

*James M. Witherow,*for appellant.

*Nye & Dosland,*for respondent.

2

 Reported in 121 N. W. 1134.

Per CuRrAir.

In this action the plaintiff sought to recover the reasonable value of services alleged to have been rendered to' the city of Moorhead in the care of certain patients at the city hospital or pesthouse. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The assignments of error question the correctness of certain rulings of the court at the trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

We find nothing in the record which requires discussion. The evidence sustains the verdict, and no rulings made by the trial court were sufficiently prejudicial in their effect to justify a reversal. The order of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         606,957
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,250)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 584,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        284,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                     201,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   584,517
<SALES>                                         22,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,649
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,140
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,140
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
Ikemefula Charles IBEABUCHI, petitioner, v. Amy M. WOOD.

No. 18-8659.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/15/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      362,200
COMMITMENTS
  70,022  133,636   82,003  188,324  121,934  340,349  337,573   21,851   24,627

CHANGES FROM 10/08/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -14,288)
 -15,247  -23,883   -4,098    8,242   17,419  -11,103  -10,562   -3,185   -3,726

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    19.3     36.9     22.6     52.0     33.7     94.0     93.2      6.0      6.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      158)
      46       63       73       34       38      127      135
```

----

Updated October 30, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 31557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11077]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3879484854515b594c5157564b167b5755555d564c4b78594c54165e4a5a16574a5f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="276657574b4e4446534e4849540964484a4a424953546746534b0941554509485540">[email protected]</span></a>:
    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Curtis Wayne GIVENS, Petitioner v. VIRGINIA.

No. 18-9606

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 13, 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00223

- CV

Shereen Jordan , Appellant

v.

Justin Jordan , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KE LLY AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the order denying app ellant ’ s motion to modify temp orary orders and the

order denying appellant ’ s motion for s anctions, both signed by the tr i a l court on March 31, 2023

.

Having reviewed the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

.

Therefore, the C o urt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent

and unable to pay costs, no adjudica tion of costs is made.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF SRK CONSULTING (US), Inc. 

          The undersigned, SRK Consulting (US) Inc, ("SRK") hereby states as follows: 

          Our firm prepared an independent technical report, completed in 2009 (the "Technical Report"), concerning the Mt. Hamilton project currently owned by Mt. Hamilton, LLC of Wheat Ridge, Colorado ("MH-LLC") a controlled subsidiary of Solitario Exploration & Royalty Corp. ("Solitario").  Portions of the Technical Report are summarized under the caption "Part I - Item 2. Properties Mt. Hamilton Gold Project" in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Solitario (the "Form 10-K") for the year ended December 31, 2010, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-146277 of Solitario Exploration & Royalty Corp. on Form S-8 of  the summary information concerning the Technical Report, including the reference to our firm included with such information, as set forth above in the Form 10-K.  

SRK Consulting (US), Inc.  
/s/ J.B. Pennington 
 
Name:
 
J. B. Pennington. 
 
Title:
 
Practice Leader - SRK Reno  
Date:  
March 9, 2011
Anthony James MERRICK, petitioner, v. Mark BRNOVICH, Attorney General of Arizona, et al.

No. 17-8967.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Amendment No. 2 effective as of December 7, 2011 to the Development Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT 

NUMBER 2 
 This
Development Agreement Amendment Number 2 (this “Amendment”), by and between ICM, Inc. (the “ICM”) and Gevo, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at 345 Inverness Dr. South, Building C, Suite 310, Englewood, Colorado
80112-5889 (“Gevo”) is effective as of December 7, 2011 (the “Effective Date”) and amends that certain Development Agreement between ICM and Gevo (the “Agreement”) effective October 16, 2008. 

ICM and Gevo agree that Section 9 of the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety with the following: 

“9 Project Term. With respect to the Project, this Agreement is effective as of the Effective Date set forth above and will terminate as provided
below (the “Project Term”). Either Party may terminate this Agreement without cause at any time, with termination effective thirty (30) days after such Party’s delivery to the other party of written notice of termination. Gevo or
ICM also may terminate this Agreement immediately upon the other Party’s material breach of Article 10 (“Confidentiality”) or Article 11 (“Intellectual Property”) or any time prior to the start of the Project. If Gevo
terminates this Agreement during the Project Term, it will remain responsible to pay to ICM all amounts owed pursuant to Section 23 as of the effective date of such termination, including but, not limited to, all costs incurred by ICM for
construction and modification of the Plant for purposes of the Project.” 
 All other terms, restrictions and obligations of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect. All capitalized words and terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have the respective meaning/s ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

 

			
	Accepted and Agreed to,
	
	ICM, Inc.:
		
	By:	 	/s/ Tom Ranallo
	Name:	 	Tom Ranallo
	Title:	 	Vice-President—Operations
	
	Gevo, Inc.:
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brett Lund
	Name:	 	Brett Lund
	Title:	 	EVP & General Counsel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STEVEN S. ABERG, SR.

,

Respondent Below, Appellant,

v.

TINA JOHAL

,

Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 561 , 2019

Court Below: Family Court
of the State of Delaware

File No. CK09

- 02326
Petition No. 19

- 05835

Submitted: July 6, 2020
Decided: July 9 , 2020

O RDER

It appears to the Court that, on March 23 , 2020 , the Chief Deputy Clerk issued

a notice, sent by certified mail, to the appellant

, Steven S. Aberg

, Sr.

, to show cause

why h is appeal should not be dismissed for h is failure to file h is opening brief and

appendix

. Aberg received the notice to show cause on March 26, 2020

. A timely

response to the notice to show cause was due on or before April 6

, 202 0

. Under the

Court’s emerge ncy orders that extended filing deadlines due to the COVID

- 19

pandemic, the deadline for Aberg’s filing of his opening brief was extended through

July 1, 2020. To date, Aberg has not responded to the notice to show cause nor has

he filed an opening brief. Dismissal of the appeal is therefore deemed to be

unopposed.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/

s/ T amika R

. M ontgomery -R eeves Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

v. §

§

§

CHRIS REMLEY §

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

You are charged in Count One of the Information with violations of 18 U.S.C. §

922(a)(1)(A), Engaging in the Business Without a License (Firearms). The essential

elements which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish a

violation of that section are:

1. The defendant was not licensed to deal firearms

2. The defendant willfully engaged in the business of dealing firearms.

No. 4:23-CRJudg6

Respectfully submitted,

DAMIEN M. DIGGS

United States Attorney

EasternDistrict Tt as /

Matthew T. Jo g pV

Assistant United States Attorney

600 East Taylor Street, Suite 2000

Sherman, Texas 75090

Texas Bar No. 24060033

(903) 868-9454

(903) 892-2792 (fax)

Matthew. Johnson2@usdoj .gov

Elements of Offense - Page 1

Case 4:23-cr-00263-ALM-AGD Document 4 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I filed a true and correct copy of this document through the district

court s Case Management/Electronic Case File ( CM/ECF ) system on November , 

2023. All case participants should have received notice of the filing through the

CM/ECF system.

Elements of Offense - Page 2

Case 4:23-cr-00263-ALM-AGD Document 4 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7
<PAGE>








[Logo]





TO:        Peter Jarrett

FROM:      Robert DePasqua

RE:        Separation Agreement

DATE:      5/17/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of your appointment to the Operations Committee, the following
separation agreement is now included in your benefits package.

In the event that the Company terminates your employment for any reason other
than "cause", you will be entitled to the following separation package:

-  You will be notified in writing that your employment is being terminated.
   An effective date will be identified.

-  You will receive three months salary continuation, from the effective
   date, during which:
   -  You will remain an employee on "inactive" status whereby your benefits
      will continue as usual,
   -  You will no longer be present at the Company,
   -  Your stock options will continue to vest as usual,
   -  You will be provided with Outplacement Services at a cost not
      to exceed $10,000.

-  Your employment with the Company will terminate at the completion of your
   three months of salary continuation. Your last paycheck will include earned,
   unused vacation time in accordance with Company policy.

-  From your date of termination, you will have the option of continuing
   your medical and dental coverage through COBRA for up to 18 months.  For the
   first 3 months of COBRA, if you (and your eligible dependents) are uninsured,
   Focal will pay the entire premium cost. Beginning with the fourth month, you
   will be responsible for the entire premium.

-  To receive this separation package, you will be required to sign a
   document that releases Focal from any liability with regard to your
   employment.
Leah S. CALDWELL, Petitioner, v. Doris DOWNS, et al.

No. 19-7286.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Patrick LANIER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5280.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Bryan James STROTHER, Petitioner v. David S. BALDWIN, Adjutant General, California Army National Guard, et al.

No. 19-224

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Garner WOOD, Petitioner, v. Les PARISH, Warden.

No. 18-9844.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Leron PORTER, petitioner, v. RHODE ISLAND.

No. 17-9458.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island denied.
Willie Lee COOKS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-272

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
David GREENBERG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-203

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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