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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,389,550
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 62,083,828
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     12,393,640
<ALLOWANCE>                                     25,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,714,303
<DEPOSITS>                                  62,196,731
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            415,251
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8565
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,593,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              79,714,303
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                483,538
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,110,042
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               128,107
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,721,687
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,515,549
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,590,365
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,131,322
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             134,655
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                449,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                836,202
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     525,043
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                525,043
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   525,043
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     39,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 25,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               25,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            25,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         25,000
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.3

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


        The Employment Agreement entered into on August 25, 1994, by and
between John Ellison, Jr., (hereinafter the "Employee") and Nickelodeon Theater
Co., Inc., is hereby amended as follows:

        WHEREAS, the name of Nickelodeon Theater Co., Inc. was changed by
amendment to the Company's Article of Incorporation on August 25, 1995, to
CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc., (hereinafter the "Company"); and

        WHEREAS, the Company by and through its Board of Directors believes it
to be in the best interests of the Company to extend the Employment Agreement
of Employee;

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and the promises
herein made, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:

1.      As an inducement for Employee to remain in the employ of Company for a
period of time beyond the term specified in the Employment Agreement of August
25, 1994, Company hereby agrees to extend the term of that Agreement for a
period of five (5) years commencing upon the execution hereof by the parties,
unless sooner terminated in accordance with other provisions of the Employment
Agreement that is amended hereby.

2.      Paragraph 2. of the Employment Agreement of August 25, 1994 is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

3.      Except for the modifications specified in this Amendment Number One,
all of the remaining terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect for the newly stated term of this Amendment
Number One.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment
Number One on this fifth day of December, 1996.


"Company"                                       "Employee"

CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc.
a California corporation


By: /s/ Alan Grossberg                          /s/ John Ellison, Jr.
    ------------------                          ---------------------
    Alan Grossberg                              John Ellison, Jr.
    Executive Vice President &
    Chief Financial Officer
----

(2004/C 65 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Transparency in share purchases

Will the Commission state what legal or other arrangements are made in each Member State whereby companies can seek to discover the beneficial ownership of shares even if they are held by nominees, trusts or other such blinding mechanisms? Is the Commission aware of the importance of such arrangements if minority shareholder rights are to be respected by, for example, ensuring that mandatory takeover bids are launched once a controlling shareholder goes above a certain proportion of the equity? If so, what arrangements does the Commission propose whereby companies may discover the beneficial ownership of their shares even if the ownership is in another Member State? Would Member States be justified, for example, in requiring companies to place in escrow the dividends of any shareholders that failed to answer questions of beneficial ownership?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Honourable Member raised a question related to the relationship between listed companies and its shareholders. As regards shareholders, the question not only refers to legal owners of shares, but also beneficial owners. The Commission therefore considers this to be an issue of company law.

In substance, the Commission does not possess the necessary information to provide a detailed overview about the arrangements made in each Member State whereby companies can seek to discover the beneficial ownership of shares even if they are held by nominees, trusts or others. It does in particular not have information on how national systems would also cover third country investors.

The Commission considers that the right for companies to enquire about the identity of the beneficial owner has not primarily to be seen in the context of takeovers, but as an instrument in view of the care a company wishes to take with its investors, which should be weighed against interests of data privacy as well as national property law.

As regards takeovers, the Commission wishes to point out that the proposed Directive on Takeover Bids refers to the legal ownership only (see Article 2, paragraph 1a of the proposed Directive) (1).

----

(1)OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Sybounthanh CHANTHAPHONE.

No. 443P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Sybounthanh Chanthaphone, Pro Se.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th day of September 2008 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:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM THE
PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (570)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 545,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   545,684
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,973
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,844<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (162)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,846
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.54
<FN>
<F1>The financial statements reflect an unclassified balance sheet due to the
nature of the Company's industry - Real Estate.
<F2>The Company utilizes a condensed balance sheet format for 10-k reporting.
Amounts are included in Other Assets.
<F3>Amount is comprised of $49,910 of expenses less interest expense of $9,066
reflected elsewhere in this Financial Data Schedule.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FILED

May 25, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

EUGENE KERRENT, )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9809-CC-00288

)

 vs. ) MADISON COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. C97-200

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion, pursuant to Rule

20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to affirm the trial court judgment by order

rather than formal opinion. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the

petitioner’s third petition for post-conviction relief. In 1988, the petitioner was convicted

of aggravated kidnapping and being an habitual offender. The petitioner was

sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief attacking these convictions, as well as a petition attacking the

underlying convictions used to establish his habitual offender status. The trial court

denied both petitions and this Court affirmed the denials on appeal. See Eugene

Kerrent v. State, No. 02C01-9103-CC-00047 (Tenn. Crim. App., Oct. 9, 1991); Eugene

Kerrent v. State, No. 02C01-9412-CC-00275 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 1995).

On May 30, 1997, the petitioner filed the present petition for postconviction relief. The petitioner raises the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel,

which is the same issue he raised in his two previous petitions. Finding that the

petitioner had previously filed two petitions for post-conviction relief and that the present

petition is time barred, the trial court dismissed the petition.

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) provides that no more than one petition for postconviction relief may be filed attacking a single judgment, and mandates that the trial

court shall summarily dismiss any second or subsequent petition if a prior petition was
2

filed and resolved on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the

petitioner previously filed at least one petition that was resolved on the merits by the

trial court and by this Court on appeal, the petitioner's present petition was properly

dismissed. Additionally, after reviewing the entire record on appeal, we find that the

petitioner’s claim does not fall within one of the limited circumstances under which a

prior petition may be re-opened. See T.C.A. § 40-30-217. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the

petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court

of Criminal Appeals. It appearing the petitioner is indigent, costs of this appeal shall be

taxed to the state.

__________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

__________________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

__________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
WILES v. CITY OF CONCORD ZONING BD. OF ADJUSTMENT.

No. COA08-717.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Cabarrus (07CVS1969).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. SMITH.

No. COA08-559.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS2018).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Notice of Establishment

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. Appendix 2), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
announces the establishment of the Board of Scientific Counselors for 
Basic Sciences, National Cancer Institute (Board).
    This Committee shall advise the Director, NIH; the Deputy Director 
for Intramural Research, NIH; the Director, National Cancer Institute 
(NCI); and the Scientific Director, NCI, on the intramural research 
programs through periodic visits to the laboratories for assessment of 
the research in progress, the proposed research, and evaluation of the 
productivity and performance of tenured, tenure track and staff 
scientist and physicians.
    This Board will consist of 30 members, including the Chair, 
appointed by the Director, NCI, from authorities knowledgeable in the 
fields of laboratory, clinical and biometric research, clinical cancer 
treatment, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention and control research 
in the fields of interest to NCI.
    Duration of this committee is continuing unless formally determined 
by the Director, NIH, that termination would be in the best public 
interest.

    Dated: August 30, 2005.
Elias A. Zerhouni,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 05-17937 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
KELLY v. DUKE UNIVERSITY.

No. 324P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2009.

Meredith Taylor Berard, Raleigh, for Duke University.

George W. Lennon, Raleigh, for Kelly.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 661 S.E.2d 745.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of January 2009 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2009."
STATE of North Carolina. v. Anthony DOVE.

No. 131P01-11.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Anthony Dove, for Dove, Anthony.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

C. Branson Vickery, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd of March 2015 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:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of March 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Lenoir County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated February 27, 2009with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedules and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of RAIT Financial Trust and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of RAIT Financial Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 333-152351, effective on August 6, 2008; File No. 333-149340, effective on March 13, 2008;File No. 333-144603, effective on July 16, 2007 and post effective amendment effective April 25, 2008; File No. 333-139948, effective on January 12, 2007; File No. 333-139889, effective on January 10, 2007;) andForm S-8 (File No. 333-151627, effective June 13, 2008; File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005; File No. 333-100766, effective on October 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14,2001). 

/S/    GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

February 27, 2009
Order filed October 13, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 16
- 00475
- CV

____________ IN THE MATTER OF E.Y
. On Appeal from the 314th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015
- 04350J



### O R D E R
The clerk’s record was filed June 20, 2016. Our review has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the State's motion to waive jurisdiction. The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before October 24, 2016, containing the State's motion to waive jurisdiction. If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.
PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         177,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  235,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,367,788
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,246,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,731,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,257,101
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,423,009)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,731,515
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               396,884
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,683,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             164,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,450,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,450,850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,450,850)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 962/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 962/2014 of 29 August 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Pescabivona (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 962/2014                     

# of 29 August 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pescabivona (PGI))

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, Italy's application to register the name ‘Pescabivona’ 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, the name                              ‘Pescabivona’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name ‘Pescabivona’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed,                     as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014(3).                  

# 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, 29 August 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Tonio Borg                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 103, 8.4.2014, p. 13.                           

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU)                              No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
CARL AND EILBER v. STATE of NC, et al.

No. 432P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 17, 2008.

Donald H. Beskind, J. Martin Futrell, Raleigh, for Carl and Eilber.

David Dreifus, for MedAmerica.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 787.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of September 2008 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

*467"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of September 2008."