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


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,650
<PP&E>                                          27,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,899
<SALES>                                        120,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,337
<CGS>                                           80,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,191
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,070
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90


</TABLE>
STATE v. ROYSTER.

No. COA06-473.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Forsyth (02CRS61547).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### Lynette White, Appellant, v Kings Village Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[799 NYS2d 747]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated April 27, 2004, which, upon renewal, granted the motion of the defendant Kings Village Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*486The plaintiff fell to the ground when the defendant Angelina Smith’s dog suddenly lunged at her, on a sidewalk abutting a building owned by the defendant Kings Village Corp. To recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog, a plaintiff must show that the landlord had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises, and that the landlord knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities *(see Wilson v Livingston,*305 AD2d 585 [2003]; *Madaia v Petro,*291 AD2d 482 [2002]; *Lebron v New York City Hous. Auth.,*268 AD2d 563 [2000]). Even assuming that the incident occurred on its private sidewalk, Kings Village Corp. established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it lacked any knowledge that the dog had vicious propensities *(see Kempter v Erban,*284 AD2d 503 [2001]; *Bemiss v Acken,*273 AD2d 332 [2000]; *Nichols v Cardone,*257 AD2d 612 [1999]; *Althoff v Lefebvre,*240 AD2d 604 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Maniscalco v Liro Eng’g Constr. Mgt.,*305 AD2d 378 [2003]). Therefore, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Kings Village Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1163/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1163/2013 of 7 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Mohant (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1163/2013                     

# of 7 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Mohant (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Slovenia’s application to register the name ‘Mohant’ was published                              in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, that name                              should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 7 November 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.3.****Cheeses**U.K.

#### SLOVENIAU.K.

Mohant (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 160, 6.6.2013, p. 7.
NOTE
  Company WORLD
OMNI FINANCIAL CORP. Lender Credit Agreement
 Section 2.04(f)
   [Remainder of page left blank intentionally; signature page follows.]




---



##### 



SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.By:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



LOANS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO
 Amount ofPrincipal
    
    OutstandingType of
    
    Amount of
    
    End of
    
    or Interest
    
    PrincipalLoan
    
    Loan
    
    Interest
    
    Paid This
    
    Balance
    
    NotationDate
    
    Made
    
    Made
    
    Period
    
    Date
    
    This Date
    
    Made By
| Name                           |             |
|--------------------------------|------------------|
| Percentage                     | Jurisdiction     |
| Ownership                      | of Incorporation |
|                           |             |
| Summit Family Restaurants Inc. | Delaware         |
| 100%                           |             |
|                           |             |
| HTB Restaurants, Inc.          | Delaware         |
| 100% (1)                       |             |
|                           |             |
| Northstar Buffet, Inc.         | Delaware         |
| 100%                           |             |
|                           |             |
| Star Buffet Management, Inc.   | Delaware         |
| 100%                           |             |
|                           |             |
| Starlite Holdings, Inc.        | Delaware         |
| 100%                           |             |
|                           |             |
| StarTexas Restaurants, Inc.    | Texas            |
| 100%                           |             |
|                           |             |
| SBI Leasing, Inc.              | Delaware         |
| 100%                           |             |
|                           |             |
| Sizzlin Star, Inc.             | Delaware         |
| 100%                           |             |

| JB’s Star Holdings, Inc. | Delaware |
|--------------------------------|----------|
| 100%                           |     |

| KB’s Star Holdings, Inc. | Delaware |
|--------------------------------|----------|
| 100%                           |     |

| 4B’s Holdings, Inc. | Delaware |
|---------------------------|----------|
| 100%                      |     |

| Florida Buffet Holdings, Inc. | Delaware |
|-------------------------------|----------|
| 100%                          |     |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         307,611
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         709,018
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    473,484
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,175,696
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,175,483
<LOANS>                                     55,267,502
<ALLOWANCE>                                    119,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,867,545
<DEPOSITS>                                  42,681,403
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            791,441
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,223,629
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,161,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              59,867,545
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,256,388
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              119,932
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                50,522
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,426,842
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,626,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,736,454
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,690,388
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   12,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             420,575
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                777,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,367,601
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,367,601
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   902,617
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.85
<LOANS-NON>                                    146,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   298,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               272,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               107,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              119,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           119,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        119,000
        


</TABLE>
_____________

No. 96-1449MN

_____________

State of Minnesota, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Richard W. Bullock, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: March 20, 1996

 Filed: March 26, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Richard W. Bullock appeals the district court's order imposing a

$1,000 sanction after Bullock filed a second notice to remove state

criminal proceedings against him on the eve of the state trial. We find

no abuse of discretion by the district court. Although Bullock was given

an opportunity to show cause why he should not be sanctioned, Bullock made

no attempt to oppose the district court's finding that his successive

removal action was maliciously and frivolously instituted for the improper

purpose of delay, or to provide any information why the amount should have

been less. See Pope v. Federal Express Corp., 49 F.3d 1327, 1328 (8th Cir.

1995); Kirk Capital Corp. v. Bailey, 16 F.3d 1485, 1490 (8th Cir. 1994).

We thus affirm the sanction ordered by the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47A(a).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1  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 filing of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 14, 2005 (the Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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 Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: July 28, 2005 |  | /s/ John A. Beckert                  
|                    |  | John A. Beckert                      
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JHAMAR ORATAVIO DAWSON, a/k/a Smoke, a/k/a Marty,

 Defendant – Appellant.

No. 23-4358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JHAMAR ORATAVIO DAWSON, a/k/a Smoke,

 Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00354-WO-1; 1:23-cr-00030-

WO-1)

Submitted: May 20, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4357 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas Kieran Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4357 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Jhamar Oratavio Dawson appeals from the district court’s imposition of an aboveGuidelines sentence of sixty months for two counts of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). In so doing, we ensure the district court did not commit any 

procedural error, such as selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts or failing to 

adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 51. If the district court did not commit a 

procedural error, then we assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United 

States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by imposing a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm Dawson’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented by the materials before this Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4357 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                   ------------


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in Compton  Petroleum  Corporation's  Annual
Report on Form 40-F for the year ended  December  31, 2005 of our audit  report
dated March 13, 2006, on the consolidated  balance sheets of Compton  Petroleum
Corporation as at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the  consolidated  statements
of earnings, retained earnings and cash flow for each of the years in the three
year  period  ended  December  31,  2005,  to be filed with the  United  States
Securities and Exchange  Commission  pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.


/s/  Grant Thornton LLP

Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta
March 13, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shelly Smith, Jr., Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 663]

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered February 22, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) and resisting arrest (§ 205.30), defendant contends that County Court’s supplemental jury instruction on physical injury was erroneous, thereby depriving him of a fair trial. We disagree. “The court has discretion to respond as it deems *1278proper to an inquiry by a deliberating jury *(see*CPL 310.30), provided that the supplemental instruction is a meaningful response to the jury’s inquiry” *(People v Williams,*277 AD2d 945, 945 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 789 [2001]; *see People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]). We conclude that the court’s supplemental instruction, viewed together with the court’s main charge, adequately conveyed the applicable principles of law to the jury and was a meaningful response to the jury’s inquiry *(see People v Durden,*5 AD3d 333 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 798, 3 NY3d 658 [2004]; *see generally Malloy,*55 NY2d at 301-302). Also contrary to defendant’s contentions, the evidence of physical injury is legally sufficient to support the conviction of assault in the second degree *(see e.g. People v Daniels,*199 AD2d 332 [1993], *lv denied*83 NY2d 804 [1994]; *People v Piersa,*196 AD2d 896, 897 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 901 [1993]), and the verdict on that count is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, we conclude that the court did not err in sentencing defendant to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as a part of the plea bargain. “Given that the *quid pro quo*of the bargaining process will almost necessarily involve offers to moderate sentences that ordinarily would be greater . . . , it is . . . to be anticipated that sentences handed out after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea” *(People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 412 [1980], *rearg denied*51 NY2d 770 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 1087 [1981]; *see People v Urrutia,*2 AD3d 1475, 1476 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 765 [2004]). “[T]here is no indication that the sentence imposed was ‘the product of vindictiveness’ ” *(Urrutia,*2 AD3d at 1476, quoting *People v Thompson,*299 AD2d 889, 890 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 585 [2003]) or that the court “placed undue weight upon defendant’s ill-advised decision to reject [a] favorable plea bargain and proceed to trial” *(People v Morton,*288 AD2d 557, 559 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 758 [2002], *cert denied*537 US 860 [2002]). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
STATE v. Devin M. LASITER.

No. 222PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Charlesena E. Walker, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Devin M. Lasiter.

G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of May 2006 by Attorney General to Deem Response Timely Filed:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
EXHIBIT
31.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION


1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I,
Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED
COMPANIES, INC.





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





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:





(a)           designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;





(b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





(c)           presented
in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):





(a)           all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls;





(b) and any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated:
May 20,
2008





/s/Antonio F. Uccello,
III


Antonio
F. Uccello, III


Chief
Executive Officer