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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,843,870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  920,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                    65,000
<INVENTORY>                                    426,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,135,180
<PP&E>                                         112,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,468,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          428,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                         2,379
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,407,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,468,528
<SALES>                                     13,687,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,687,634
<CGS>                                       12,400,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,400,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (574,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (574,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (574,022)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Honorable Jack Wiech, Page 4 

Cameron County has a population of 81,227 inhabitants acoording to the 1940 Federal Census. Artiole 39120, 

Seation 13, Vernon*8 Annotated Civil Statutes, reads in part 

as r0ii0we: 

*Sec. 13. The COnnulssioners' court In 

oounties having a population of twenty thousand (20,OOO),Znhabitants or more, and less 

than one hundred end ninety thousand (190,000) 

inhabitants accord$ng to the last preceding 

Federal Census, Is hereby authorized and It 

shall be its duty to fix the salaries of' all 

the following named orricers, to-wit: sheriff, ' 

assessor and oolleotor or taxes, county judge, 

county attorney, including criminal district 

attorneysand county attorneys who perform 

the duties of' district attorneys, district 

clerk, county clerk, treasurer, hide and animal inspector. Eaoh of said officers shall be 

paid in money an annual salary in twelve (12) 

equal installments or not less than the total 

sum earned as compensation by him in his official capacity for the. fisosl year 1955, and 

not, more than the maxlmum,:amouut allowed suoh 

offleer under laws existing on August 24, 1935; 

. . . ." 

Under the facts stated in your letter the inspeotor 

of hides and animals or Cameron County collected inspeation 

rees amounting to #l,680.00. Sinoe the orricers' salary law 

became erfective, the inspeator of hides and animals of said 

county has been paid an annual salary of $1,680.00, which 

amounts to $140.00 per~month. !On Maroh 9, 1942, the Coqbmissioners' Court of Cameron County pessed an order fixing the 

salary of said inspector at $1.00 per year, effective January, 1943. It is our opinion, in view of'the applioable 

provisions of Article 9912e, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, the above mentioned order of the Commissioners* Court 

is void and or no effect. 

In the case of' Nacogdoches County v. Winder, (Beaumont Ct, Civ. App.) 140 S. W. (2d) 972 (writ refused), referring to SBction l$ or Article 3912e aa Article 9891, 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, it was said: 

"Under these statutes the salary of the 

County Clerk of Nacogdoches County was governed 
Honorable Jack Wiech, Page 5 

by the mf.nlmum of salary earned fn 1935, end 

a ma&sum salary 0r ~9&%30.00.n 

In ~view or the toregoing. you a* respeotfully adrised that it Is the opinion of this department that the 

Oommission6rs* Court of Cameron County has no authority to 

rix the salary or the inspector or hides and animals 0r 

saili county at any &iount less than $1,080,000 per year. It 

will be noted that Section 13 of Article 39l2e, supra, expressly provides that the salaries of the officers named 

therein shell be paid in twelve equal installments. As the 

annual salary or the inspeator or hides and animals or 

Cemeron County Is $1,680,00),the monthly salary would be 

$140.00. 

Trusting that the roregoing fully answers your 

inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

BY (signed) 

Ardel.3. Williams 

Assistant 

AW:GO 

APPHOVEPilJG 17 1942 

Gmver Sellers t 8) 

FIRSTASSISTAXT 

ATTOFtNEY GENERAL 

APPHm 

OPINION 

CONNITTEE 

BY RWP 

c%IAIRNAN
In the Matter of the Estate of Jerry L. NEWTON, Jr. Deceased. Paul Jeffrey Newton, Anne Newton Graham, and Joseph Wesley Newton, Petitioner v. Jerry Lewis Newton, III, Trustee in re: the Matter of Reba Burton Newton Revocable Trust Agreement Dated the 29th Day of September, 1992, Respondent. Paul Jeffrey Newton, Anne Newton Graham, and Joseph Wesley Newton, Petitioners v. Jerry Lewis Newton, III, Trustee in re: the Matter of Jerry Lewis Newton, Jr. Revocable Trust Agreement Dated the 29th Day of September, 1992, Respondent.

No. 586P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Stephen E. Lawing, High Point, for Jerry Lewis Newton, III.

Richard V. Bennett, Winston-Salem, for Anne Newton Graham.

Wesley Bailey, David W. Bailey, Jr., Lydia A. Hoza, Winston-Salem, for Paul Jeffrey Newton.

G. Gray Wilson, Maria C. Papoulias, Winston-Salem, for Joseph Wesley Newton.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of October 2005 by Respondent (Jerry Lewis Newton, III) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 on Form 10-Q of Cardtronics, Inc. (“Cardtronics”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cardtronics.








Date:  April 28, 2011
/s/ Steven A. RathgaberSteven A. RathgaberChief Executive Officer








Date:  April 28, 2011
/s/ J. Chris BrewsterJ. Chris BrewsterChief Financial Officer
In the Matter of B.N.H. A Minor Child. appealed by Respondent-Mother Leigh Ann H.

No. 279P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Gary C. Rhodes, Salisbury, for Mother-Leigh Ann H.

J. David Abernathy, for Catawba County Dept. of SS.

Angela Phillips, Guardian Ad Litem, Pro Se.

Carolyn Crouch, Mary McKay, Attorney Advocates, for Other.

Donald Posey, Hickory, for Father.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of May 2005 by Respondent (Mother-Leigh Ann H.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered *866and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5175 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding 

of income and social security taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. LINDER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. KINGSTON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, 

Mr. PENCE, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

FLAKE, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mrs. CUBIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the withholding of income and social security taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Tax With5 holding Act of 2008’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5175 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF WITHHOLDING OF INCOME AND SOCIAL 

2 SECURITY TAXES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The following sections of the In4 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 are hereby repealed: 

5 (1) Section 3102 (relating to deduction of social 

6 security tax from wages). 

7 (2) Section 3202 (relating to deduction of rail8 road retirement tax from compensation). 

9 (3) Chapter 24 (relating to income tax with10 holding). 

11 (b) REQUIREMENT OF ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENTS

12 FOR EMPLOYEE SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.—Subsection 

13 (f) of section 6654 of such Code is amended by striking 

14 ‘‘minus’’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘plus’’, 

15 by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by 

16 inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: 

17 ‘‘(3) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) and 

18 3201(a), minus’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to amounts paid on or after the 

21 first January 1 occurring after 1 year after the date of 

22 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Amended Form of 1-3-5 Year Restricted Stock Award Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
  
 STANDARD TERMS OF AWARDS GRANTED
UNDER 
 THE 1-3-5 RESTRICTED STOCK PROGRAM
(“PROGRAM”) 
 OF THE 2004 SYPRIS EQUITY
PLAN (“PLAN”) 
  
 1. Awards
– All “Awards” granted under this Program will be Restricted Shares subject to, and governed by, the terms of the Plan, this Program and a valid, executed Award Agreement. 
  
 2. Shares – Initially, each “Restricted Share” is one Share of the Common Stock (subject to adjustments per the Plan)
which is subject to forfeiture before its Vesting Date, as set forth herein. Shares will be held by the Company until their Vesting Dates, and physically distributed to the Participant thereafter, with any legends required by applicable Rules.
Participants may vote, and receive (subject to applicable Rules) cash dividends on, unvested Shares. 
  
 3. Taxes – The Participant must arrange for tax withholding in accordance with applicable Rules, to the satisfaction of the Committee, or immediately surrender then-vested Shares of equivalent market
value. 
  
 4. Vesting – Thirty percent of the Award shall vest on each
of its first and third anniversaries of the Grant Date, and forty percent of the Award shall vest on the fifth anniversary of the Grant Date (each anniversary, a “Vesting Date”), unless forfeited before such Vesting Date; provided that in
the event of death, all unvested Awards will be immediately vested. 
  
 5.
Forfeiture – Each Restricted Share will terminate, expire and be forfeited as provided in Article V of the Plan. (The Committee has sole discretion to determine whether a demotion is a “termination” of employment.) 
  
 6. Leaves of Absence – The Committee may in its discretion treat all or any
portion of any period during which a Participant is on military or on an approved leave of absence as a period of employment for purposes of the accrual of rights hereunder. Retiring after age 65 or qualifying to receive long-term disability
benefits under the Company’s then-current policies shall be approved leaves of absence. 
  
 7. No Other Rights – The Awards include no other rights beyond those expressly provided in the Plan, this Program or the Award Agreement. Awards are non-assignable and non-transferable except by will or
the laws of descent and distribution, unless otherwise approved by the Committee. 
  
 8. Definitions – Unless otherwise specified, all capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan or in the Award Agreement.
exv10w10



 






Exhibit 10.10



Summary of Interim Housing Arrangements with John J. Zillmer



On August 1, 2005, the Management Development/Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (“Company”) approved certain arrangements with its Chief Executive
Officer, John J. Zillmer, to accommodate Mr. Zillmer’s relocation to the Scottsdale, Arizona area.
For an interim period of up to 90 days, effective July 1, 2005, the Company has agreed to make
available a furnished residence in Scottsdale for Mr. Zillmer’s personal use. The total fair market value of
this residence for the 90-day period, including utilities and maintenance, which is estimated to be
approximately $16,000.00, will be reported as additional taxable compensation to Mr. Zillmer.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DANIEL WARREN,

Petitioner

v.

KAREN C. DEVINE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 54 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2019, the “Petition for Review in the 

Nature of a Mandamus” is DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name 

of the jurist from the caption.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 4, 2015

p0128

Order 

Clerk

February 4, 2015

149558

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149558

COA: 314864

Ingham CC: 12-000908-FH

DEMARCUS ANDANTE WARE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5569 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5569

     To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2008

Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 
1153 note) is amended by striking ``for 15 years'' and inserting ``for 
20 years''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. FRYE.

No. COA05-1042.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 10.01











SWANK, INC.

90 PARK AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017



 

	 	
July 28, 2005








Mr. Eric P. Luft

15 Fenimore Lane

Huntington, New York 11743



Dear Mr. Luft:


        We refer to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated December 18, 2003 between Swank, Inc. ("Swank") and you (as amended to date, the "Agreement").  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter have the meanings assigned to those terms in the Agreement.



        This will confirm our agreement that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Agreement, (a) the last day of the present Employment Term shall be March 31, 2006, and the notice that may be given by either you or Swank under Section 1 of the Agreement that the present Employment Term shall not be extended may be given by either Swank or you on or prior to March 15, 2006, (b) in the event that neither you nor Swank notify the other that the Employment Term shall not be extended, the Employment Term shall be extended until June 30, 2006, and thereafter, further extensions and notices that the Employment Term shall not be extended, as the case may be, shall be in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, and (c) in the event you shall provide notice on or prior to March 15, 2006 that the present Employment Term shall not be so extended, (i) Swank shall pay to you, provided you shall not at any time be in violation of paragraph 6, a severance payment, payable in installments in accordance with Swank's regular pay intervals for its executive officers, equal to $68,000, less all required deductions and withholdings, and (ii) the provisions of Section 6(a) shall be applicable for a period of three (3) months (through June 30, 2006).



        Except as provided above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.



        Kindly confirm your agreement to the foregoing by signing this letter below and returning a copy to Swank.



	 	
Very truly yours,

	 	 	 
	 	
SWANK, INC.

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
By:
	
/s/ John Tulin

	
	
	

	 	 	
John Tulin, President






	
Agreed:

	 
	 
	
/s/ Eric P. Luft

	

	
Eric P. Luft
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM 6/30/99 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            103
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    19,973
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               78,920
<PP&E>                                        219,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                 71,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                482,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          74,357
<BONDS>                                       225,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        4,162
<OTHER-SE>                                     55,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  482,438
<SALES>                                       448,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              448,155
<CGS>                                         374,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 409,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,276)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,432
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,432
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.34


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALAN CRAIG RICHARDS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50547

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00070-GHK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 21, 2015** 

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Alan Craig Richards appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Richards contends that the district court erred by failing to address his

FILED

SEP 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sentencing arguments and by improperly relying on the need to punish to impose

sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608

F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court

considered Richards’ arguments before imposing sentence but simply found them

unpersuasive. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The record

also reflects that the district court did not base the sentence primarily on the need

to punish. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

Richards next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Richards’ sentence. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 36-month sentence is substantively

reasonable in light the of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances, including Richards’ breaches of the court’s trust. See

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63 (at a revocation sentencing, the

district court can sanction a violator for his breach of trust).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50547