alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5676 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5676

To designate the historic Federal Building located at 100 North Palafox 
    Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2008

Mr. Miller of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the historic Federal Building located at 100 North Palafox 
    Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The historic Federal Building located at 100 North Palafox Street 
in Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Winston 
E. Arnow Federal Building'', in honor of Winston E. Arnow who was 
appointed United States District Judge for the Northern District of 
Florida by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, and who served with 
distinction until his death in 1994.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal 
Building''.
                                 <all>
```
IN RE RICHARD.

No. COA06-1464.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007.

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Property Tax Commission (05PTC56).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 11.1

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Primary earnings per share are computed by dividing earnings available to common
shares by the weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares
outstanding during the period.

For purposes of computing primary earnings per share, common equivalent shares
include the average number of common shares issuable upon the exercise of all
employee stock options, if dilutive, less the common shares which could have
been purchased at the average market price during the period with the assumed
proceeds, including "windfall" tax benefits, from the exercise of the options,
awards and subscriptions.

Fully-diluted earnings per share are computed by dividing the sum of earnings
available to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares,
common equivalent shares and common shares assumed converted from potentially
dilutive securities outstanding during the period.

For purposes of computing fully-diluted earnings per share, common equivalent
shares are computed on a basis comparable to that for primary earnings per
share, except that common shares are assumed to be purchased at the market price
at the end of the period, if dilutive.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 853/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 853/2013 of 3 September 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 853/2013                     

# of 3 September 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 September 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
SEA RANCH OWNERS ASSO. v. SEA RANCH.

No. 338P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, Alyssa M. Chen, William S. Hoyle, Rocky Mount, for Sea Ranch Owners Asso.

Steven C. Frucci, Virginia Beach, VA, for Sea Ranch II, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of March 2007 by Defendant for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 34 of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."

Justices MARTIN and HUDSON recused.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31193

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFRED HENRY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CR-20001

- - - - - - - - - -

July 17, 1997

Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred Henry, Jr., appeals the denial of his “Motion for

Correction of Sentence” following his guilty-plea conviction for

the use of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Henry incorrectly based the

motion upon 18 U.S.C. § 3742, which does not authorize motion

practice. The proper vehicle for Henry’s challenge is 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. See United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (5th Cir.
No. 96-31193

- 2 -

1983). Because the motion is a § 2255 motion, Henry must secure

a certificate of appealability (COA) to 

obtain appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A ruling on a COA

should be made in the first instance by the district court, sua

sponte if no request is made. Muniz v. Johnson, ___ F.3d ___

(5th Cir. May 20, 1997, No. 96-50508), 1997 WL 265120, at *2; see

United States v. Orozco, 103 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Henry made no such request in the district court, and there has

been no ruling by the district court. Accordingly, the case is

remanded to the district court for it to determine whether a COA

should issue and, if so, what issues warrant appealability. See

Muniz. Additionally, it is noted that the district court erred

by assessing the appellate filing fee pursuant to the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); the PLRA does not apply to appeals

from the denial of § 2255 motions. United States v. Cole, 101

F.3d 1076, 1077 (5th Cir. 1996). 

REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-22-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-21-2000
<CASH>                                          87,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                       306
<INVENTORY>                                  1,286,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,531,248
<PP&E>                                         755,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                 366,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,236,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,019,046
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           51,546
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       866,269
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,236,140
<SALES>                                      3,730,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,730,071
<CGS>                                        2,826,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,826,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (72,533)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (26,224)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 15.1





Club  Corporation  International
Dallas,  Texas

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

Re:    Registration  Statement  Nos.  33-89818,  33-96568  and  333-08041

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we acknowledge our
awareness  of the use therein of our report dated July 18, 1997 related to our
review  of  interim  financial  information.

Pursuant  to  Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered  part  of  a  registration  statement  prepared  or certified by an
accountant  or  a  report  prepared  or  certified by an accountant within the
meaning  of  sections  7  and  11  of  the  Act.




                                   KPMG  Peat  Marwick  LLP



Dallas,  Texas
July  24,  1997
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1516** 

In R e: DENIS E. BERGERON; 1UP ALLSTAR SERVICENTERS, LLC , Petitioners
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
.

( 13

- 02912

- 8

- SWH ; 14

- 00542

- 5

- SWH )

Submitted : September 22 , 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Denis E. Bergeron , 1Up Allstar Servicenters, LLC , Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Denis Bergeron and 1Up Allstar Servicenters, LLC, petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order reversing a number of rulings in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings. We conclude that the parties are not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003)
. Ma ndamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. The relief sought by Bergeron and 1U p Allstar Servicenters, LLC, is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny the motions to stay and motions to expedite
. We dis pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
ex10-20.htm



Exhibit 10.20









 


November 2, 2015


 


Newport Capital Bancorp LLC


Attn: Mr. John Vasquez


11777 San Vicente Blvd., #550


Los Angeles, CA 90049


 



	
RE:

	
Consulting Agreement, dated July 1, 2015, between Aegis Identity Software, Inc. and Newport Capital Bancorp LLC (“Agreement”)







 


Dear Mr. Vasquez,


 


This letter memorializes the intention of Aegis Identity Software, Inc. and Newport Capital Bancorp LLC with respect to the equity compensation set forth in Section 8 of the Agreement.  The parties agree the number of shares and the exercise price of the warrant were based on post reverse stock split calculations.  Thus, the parties acknowledge that the warrants provided for in the Agreement were intended to reflect the reverse stock split.


 


If Newport Capital Bancorp is in agreement, please return a signed copy of this letter to Aegis Identity.


 








	
AEGIS IDENTITY SOFTWARE, INC.

	 
	  	 
	  	 
	

/s/ Ralph Armijo by Robert Lamvik



	 
	
Ralph Armijo

	 
	
Executive Chairman

	 





















	
ACKNOWLEDGED & AGREED:

	 
	
NEWPORT CAPITAL BANCORP LLC

	 
	  	 
	  	 
	

/s/ John Vasquez



	 
	
John Vasquez

	 
	
Chairman
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CRAIG D. MURPHY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2019, the Motion for Extraordinary Jurisdiction 

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1996
<CASH>                                       2,899,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,217,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   145,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,446,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,967,000
<PP&E>                                      47,092,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,823,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,240,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,897,000
<BONDS>                                      3,120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,400
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,224,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,240,000
<SALES>                                     39,501,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,501,000
<CGS>                                       23,956,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,956,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,060,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             174,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,535,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,678,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,857,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,857,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Arthur O. ARMSTRONG.

No. 232P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of July 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Rehearing":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Jeffrey A. Snider,certify that:

 

1.       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PAULA Financial;

 

2.       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.       Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the small business issuer and have:

 

a)       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

b)      Evaluated the effectivenessof the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

c)       Disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.       Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)       Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)      Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 14, 2004 | By:                     | /s/ Jeffrey A. Snider |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
STATE v. HUNT

No. COA06-832

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Robeson (02CRS51753).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.