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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<CASH>                                       9,163,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,103,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,586,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,824,000
<PP&E>                                      66,838,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,051,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,081,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,106,000
<BONDS>                                      2,048,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,081,000
<SALES>                                     25,644,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,644,000
<CGS>                                       15,899,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,899,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,611,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,233,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   826,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,407,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,407,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark L. BIBBS.

No. 306P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 12, 2006.

Allen G. Thomas, Wilson, for Mark L. Bibbs.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*468*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 8th day of June 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 12th day of June 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 8th day of June 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 12th day of June 2006."
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3218 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3218


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2008

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Criminal History Background Checks 
Pilot Extension Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note) is 
amended by striking ``a 60-month'' and inserting ``a 66-month''.

            Passed the Senate June 26, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 2, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00852-CV

PAYSON PETROLEUM, INC. AND MATTHEW CARL GRIFFIN, Appellants

V.

J. MICHAEL WHEELER AND JMW BROWN #1, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-06306

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Fillmore and Stoddart 

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss. The parties have informed the 

Court that they have settled their differences. Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion and 

dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

140852F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PAYSON PETROLEUM, INC. AND 

MATTHEW CARL GRIFFIN, Appellants

No. 05-14-00852-CV V.

J. MICHAEL WHEELER AND 

JMW BROWN #1, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-06306.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal and cross-appeal are 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of November, 2015.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

As independent registeredpublic accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of ourreport dated March 26, 2007 relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Omtool, Ltd. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006and 2005 included in this form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filedRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-115016)and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-39571 and 333-91659).

/s/ Vitale Caturano & Company, Ltd.VITALE, CATURANO & COMPANY, LTD.

Boston, MassachusettsMarch 26, 2007

----
STATE v. WATSON.

No. COA06-1519.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (05CRS252887).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                   STIRLING COOKE BROWN HOLDINGS LIMITED
                Victoria Hall, 3rd Floor, 11 Victoria Street
                          Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda

            LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                             March 28th, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington,  D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

Pursuant to  Temporary  Note 3T to Article 3 of  Regulation  S-X,  Stirling
Cooke Brown Holdings Limited has obtained a letter or  representation  from
Arthur Andersen LLP  ("Andersen")  stating that the December 31, 2001 audit
was subject to their quality  control  system for the U.S.  accounting  and
auditing practice to provide  reasonable  assurance that the engagement was
conducted  in  compliance  with  professional  standards,  that  there  was
appropriate    continuity   of   Andersen    personnel   working   on   the
auditavailability  of national  office  consultation  and  availability  of
personnel  at  foreign  affiliates  of  Andersen  to conduct  the  relevant
portions of this audit.

                                Very truly yours,

                                Stirling Cooke Brown Holdings Limited

                                /s/ Stephen A. Crane

                                Stephen A. Crane
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Andrew Batinovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification
has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Andrew Batinovich                
|                      |  | Andrew Batinovich                    
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                      |  | Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated
IN RE C.E.R.

No. COA06-972.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Catawba (04J112, 04J113, 04J114, 04J115, 04J116).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification by the ChiefFinancial Officer**

**Relating to a Periodic ReportContaining Financial Statements**

 

I, Deborah S. Maddocks, Vice President - Finance, ofPAULA Financial, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that:

 

(1)           TheCompany’s periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,2005 (the “Form 10-QSB”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           Thefinancial statements and disclosures contained in the Form 10-QSB fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

*              *              *

 

 

VICEPRESIDENT - FINANCE

 

 
| /s/ Deborah S. Maddocks |                 |
|-------------------------|----------------------|
| Deborah S. Maddocks     |                 |
|                    |
| Date:                   | August 12, 2005 |
|                         |                      |  |

 

1

----
DEEM v. HBE CORP.

No. COA06-381

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #141741).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3035 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3035

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                                  1965.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
    (a) Extension of Programs.--Section 2(a) of the Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 
amended by striking ``May 31, 2008'' and inserting ``June 30, 2008''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in the 
Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be 
construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of 
appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in the 
amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 
(Public Law 109-171), by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 
(Public Law 110-84), or by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student 
Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-227) to the provisions of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
SOTO v. BUCHANAN

No. COA06-142

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Wake (02CVS16980).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2014014EN.01003501.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 14/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 14/35

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and Commission Directive 2007/14/EC laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 294 of 6 November 2013
  )

On page 27, Article 5:

for:

‘By 27 November 2015, ...’,

read:

‘By 27 November 2018, ...’.

---
Exhibit 3.3**CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION****OF****METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT**     This Certificate of Correction is filed pursuant to Section 33-611 of the ConnecticutBusiness Corporation Act to correct an inaccuracy in that certain Certificate of Amendment datedFebruary 10, 2006 and filed with the State of Connecticut Secretary of the State on February 14,2006 (the “Certificate of Amendment”) amending the Charter of The Travelers Life and AnnuityCompany (the “Charter”).     The Certificate of Amendment inaccurately stated that Section 1 of the Charter was “amendedand restated in its entirety” when, instead, it should have amended Section 1 of the Charter todelete the words “The Travelers Life and Annuity Company” and to substitute the words “MetLife Lifeand Annuity Company of Connecticut” in their stead. The remainder of Section 1 of the Charter shallremain in place unaffected by the Certificate of Amendment.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Correction is dated and executed as of the4th day of April, 2007.      **METLIFE LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY OF**
***AMENDED CLD-125 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-1334

___________

IN RE: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Related to Agency No. A096-689-764)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 13, 2023

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 2, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Vamsidhar Reddy Vurimindi, is a native of India who became a lawful 

permanent resident in 2008. In 2017, an Immigration Judge determined that he was 

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for having been convicted of a crime of 

stalking. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed, but, upon review, we 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

determined that Vurimindi’s offense of conviction does not qualify as a removable 

offense. Vurimindi v. Att’y Gen., 46 F.4th 134, 148 (3d Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we 

vacated the BIA’s orders affirming the removal order and remanded the matter to the 

agency for further proceedings. 

In February 2023, Vurimindi filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus in this 

Court, again complaining that the BIA is “dilly-dallying” in granting his motion to 

terminate. By order entered April 20, 2023, the BIA terminated the proceedings without 

prejudice. Accordingly, we will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v. 

Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur 

during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome 

of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be 

dismissed as moot.”).1 

1 Vurimindi’s request to convert his mandamus petition to a petition for review and all 

other requests for relief are denied.
STATE v. STREATER

No. COA05-1665

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Union (02CRS51779, 02CRS51380, 02CRS51381, 02CRS51388, 02CRS51389, 02CRS51392).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No prejudicial error.
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




Lewis R. Belote, III

2005 Executive Bonus Plan



For 2005, you will be eligible to receive a performance bonus based upon achievement of performance
objectives. Your bonus may be up to the following amounts:



Sixty Percent (60%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Corporate Financial Performance (as
outlined below). Forty Percent (40%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Individual
Performance Objectives (as outlined below). Your Target Bonus for 2005 is $350,000. Your Target
Bonus is your expected bonus amount assuming successful achievement of all of your performance
objectives. If you significantly exceed your performance objectives, you may receive a bonus in
excess of your Target Bonus, up to a maximum of 200% of your Target Bonus.




	 	 	 
	At Threshold Performance Level:

	 	0% of Target Bonus
	 
	 	 
	At Target Performance Level:

	 	100% of Target Bonus (60% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 40% for Individual
Performance)
	 
	 	 
	At Growth Performance Level:

	 	200% of Target Bonus (120% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 80% for Individual
Performance)





Achievement in between levels will be calculated according to a bonus formula described below.



Corporate Financial Performance Element



The Corporate Financial Performance element will be determined based on a financial matrix that
includes Cash Operating Income and Revenue components. For purposes of this Bonus Plan, “Cash
Operating Income” means Operating Income less non-cash charges and extraordinary, non-recurring
items, calculated before payment of executive bonuses. A copy of the matrix for your 2005 bonus,
as approved by the Compensation Committee, is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus
Plan.



Individual Performance Objectives



Your maximum potential bonus award for the Individual Performance element is 80% of your Target
Bonus (for extraordinary performance). Your expected bonus for the Individual Performance Element
is 40% of your Target Bonus (at acceptable satisfaction of your objectives). A copy of your
individual performance objectives is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus Plan.




39
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD J OSHUA SMITH

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

O M O NIYI AKINTOLA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 16 225

D.C. No. 2 : 21

- cv

- 00 420

- TLN

- EFB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Easter n District of California

Troy L. Nunley , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 1 4 , 20 23 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ

, FRIEDLAND

, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Donald J oshua Smith appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1 291. We review d e novo

. Gordon v. C ounty of Orange , 888 F.3d

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 16 225

1118, 1122 (9 th Cir. 2018). We affirm

.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether d efendant Akintola was

deliberately indifferent in treating Smith’s medical conditions

. See Toguchi v.

Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 105 7

- 60 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion

concerning the course of treatment doe s not amount to deliberate indifference)

.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         163,489
<SECURITIES>                                 1,120,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  335,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,653,619
<PP&E>                                         211,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,628,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,535,303
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,024,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,628,988
<SALES>                                         52,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            6,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  506,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (461,246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (461,246)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (461,246)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.012)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.012)



</TABLE>