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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              117,887,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             132,698,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      106,630,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    26,696,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (628,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               132,698,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,277,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,551,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               653,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,856,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,217,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   441,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            776,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   776,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36


</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01046901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/469 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/469

---

(2004/C 78 E/0493)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3135/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Disposal of toxic ships

Subject:

Commissioner Wallström will be aware of the current movement of a number of contaminated US navy ships laden with toxic waste from the US to the UK for disposal. These ageing ships will be towed across the Atlantic at great risk to European waters especially to the coastal areas of Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In view of these facts I would ask the Commission whether these shipments are in keeping with the legislative packages drawn up in light of the ‘Erika’ I and II and ‘Prestige’ disasters and what, if any, measures can be taken to prevent Member States becoming a dumping ground for toxic waste of this sort?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

(14 November 2003)

According to the information available to the Commission, the measures already adopted by the Union in the wake of the ‘Erika’ and ‘Prestige’ accidents do not apply to shipments of end-of life ships.

However, the commitment made in Johannesburg to protect our vulnerable marine environment and the experience learned from the ‘Erika’, ‘Prestige’ and Tricolor disasters should lead us to a precautionary approach.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community applies to all shipments of waste, and thus also to these end-of life ships. According to information submitted to the Commission, the end-of life ships are intended to be recovered in the United Kingdom. According to the Regulation, the countries involved in such a shipment, i.e. the countries of dispatch, destination and transit, all have to consent to the shipment. It thus follows that all the competent authorities involved can oppose the shipment.

A pre-condition to receive a consent from the competent authorities, in particular that of destination, is that the treatment facility is authorised and has adequate technical capacity to treat the waste in question under conditions presenting no danger to human health and to the environment. The Commission has received a complaint in this regard and is investigating the complaint as a matter of urgency with the United Kingdom authorities. The latest information at the Commission's disposal would suggest that the United Kingdom authorities are currently evaluating the situation with regard to the permit of the receiving company.

Finally, should the end-of life ships be intended for disposal, Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 provides that the Community only imports the waste concerned if the exporting country does not have the capacity to treat the waste itself.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Peter Papano, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|/s/ PETER PAPANO                               
|Peter Papano Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer
|                                               
|November 9, 2007
VINCENT BURLEY, Employee v. US FOODS, INC., Employer Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Carrier (Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Third-Party).

No. 123A14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 12, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 29th of October 2015 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 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 of November 2015."
STATE v. Randy THOMAS.

No. 365P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Rufus C. Allen, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of August 2008 by Defendant to Proceed in Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
Exhibit 10.6

DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

This Distribution Agreement ("Agreement") is hereby made and entered into as of the 1st day of November, 1999, by and between GameTech
International, Inc. ("GameTech"), a Delaware corporation, with principal offices located at 2209 West 1st Street, Suite 113, Tempe, Arizona 85281 and Trend Gaming Systems, L.L.C.("Distributor"), with principal offices located at11006 Metric Blvd. Austin, Texas
78758. GameTech and Distributor are sometimes referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties".

WHEREAS,
GameTech desires Distributor to act as a distributor of its products and services (as hereinafter defined) within the Territory (as hereinafter defined) and Distributor desires
to be a distributor of GameTech's products and services within the Territory, the Parties do hereby enter into this Agreement for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the
Parties agree as follows:

1.    Grant of Rights.



2.    Duties and Responsibilities of GameTech.



---



3.    Duties and Responsibilities of Distributor.



4.    Compensation.



2

---



5.    Customer Pricing, Accounting and Payments.



3

---



6.    Proprietary Rights and Confidentiality.



7.    Trademarks and Trade Names.

During
the Term of this Agreement, Distributor shall have the right to indicate to the public that it is an authorized distributor of GameTech Products and to advertise the Products to
potential customers under the trademarks, marks, and trade names that GameTech may adopt from time to time ("GameTech's Trademarks"). Distributor shall not alter or remove any of GameTech's Trademarks
applied to the Products at the factory. Nothing herein shall grant to Distributor any right, title or interest in GameTech's Trademarks. At no time during or after the term of this Agreement shall
Distributor challenge or assist others to challenge GameTech's Trademarks or the registration thereof or attempt to register any trademarks, marks or trade names confusingly similar to those of
GameTech.

8.    General Provisions.



4

---



5

---



6

---



The
Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.

IN
WITNESS WHEROF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement as of this date first above written.

|"GameTech"                   |  | "Distributor"                         
|---------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|GameTech International, Inc. |  | Trend Gaming Systems, LLC             
|Signed:                      |  | /s/RICHARD T. FEDORAuthorized Officer 
|Printed Name:                |  | Richard T. Fedor                      
|Title:                       |  | Chairman & CEO                        
|Signed:                      |  | /s/ANDREJS K. BUNKSEAuthorized Officer
|Printed Name:                |  | Andrejs K. Bunkse                     
|Title:                       |  | General CounselCorporate Secretary   

7

---

QuickLinks
STATE of North Carolina, v. Mark W. GROSS, Defendant.

No. COA14-1048.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 419 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 419

For the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, 
            Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 29, 2007

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, 
            Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
order, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian 
Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be deemed 
to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, 
and shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255).
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the applications for issuance of immigrant visas or the 
applications for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees 
within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
immigrant visas to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian 
Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 4, during the 
current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth 
under section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as applicable.
                                 <all>
```
NO. 07-12-0369-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	SEPTEMBER 5, 2012

	______________________________

	In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,

										Relator

	______________________________ 

	Original Proceeding

______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Pending before the court is Barry Dwayne Minnfee’s application for a writ of mandamus.  He requests a writ of mandamus against “clerk” for the “municipal judge.”  We dismiss the petition. 

Relator complains that the clerk for the municipal court in Amarillo, Texas, has refused to file a document wherein he requests DNA testing.  Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.  *In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., L.P.,* 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).  Texas Government Code § 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and writs against specified district or county court judges in the court of appeals district.  TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004).  Consequently, unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the municipal court clerk.  *In re Coronado,* 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (noting because a district clerk is not a judge, a relator must show issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals).  Relator’s mandamus petition does not claim, nor does it appear to seek relief designed to enforce this court’s jurisdiction.  Relator does not allege that he has an appeal pending before this court.  

Furthermore, relator has failed to show any authority permitting him to petition for DNA testing through a municipal or small claims court to attack his conviction.  Nor has he provided this court with a copy of the petition in the form of an appendix.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  

Per Curiam 

2

2
Accountants' Consent
                      --------------------





The Board of Directors
Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated May 15, 1998, relating to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of Harbor Federal Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended March 31, 1998 which report is incorporated by reference
in the March 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Harbor
Federal Bancorp, Inc.


                                /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                  
                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
June 25, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Company's
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,754                       0
<SECURITIES>                                    79,624                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,574                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,827                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,816                       0
<PP&E>                                          20,522                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,277)                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,061                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,549                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            16                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,496                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,061                       0
<SALES>                                         18,716                  35,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,432                  53,509
<CGS>                                              703                   1,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,664                  12,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,003                  36,680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   620                     651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11                      16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,804                   6,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,633                   2,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,171                   3,661
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,171                   3,661
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20                     .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19                     .22
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES
                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                     WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                           Form 10-QSB/A

[x]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the quarterly period ended July 31, 1996

[ ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the transition period from ___________ to __________


                  Commission File Number 0-25096


                      HORIZON BANCORP, INC.
(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)


         Texas                               74-2412835
(State or other jurisdiction              (I.R.S. Employer
 of incorporation or organization)         Identification No.)
      

              5800 North MoPac, Austin, Texas  78731
             (Address of principal executive offices)


                          (512) 371-0700
                   (Issuer's telephone number)

     Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to
be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2)
has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days.
                      Yes [x]     No  [ ]


     State the number of Shares outstanding of each of the
issuer's classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable
date:

     As of October 31, 1996, there were 1,388,757 shares of the
Registrant's common stock issued and outstanding.

     Transmitional Small Business Disclosure Format:
                      Yes [ ]     No  [x]

                           SIGNATURES


In accordance with the requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant caused this report to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized.


                                   HORIZON BANCORP, INC.
                                   Registrant




Date: November 1, 1996             By: /s/ Douglas B. Kadison  
                                   Douglas B. Kadison
                                   President and Chief Executive
                                   Officer



Date: November 1, 1996             By: /s/ Paul A. Antrim      
                                   Paul A. Antrim
                                   Executive Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
Jhonny A. DELGADO, Plaintiff, v. Leslie PETRUK, Stepping Stones Counseling and Consulting of Charlotte, PLLC, and The Stone Center for Counseling and Leadership, PLLC, Defendants.

No. COA15-34.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
STATE of North Carolina. v. Zachary David THOMSEN.

No. 308A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for Thomsen, Zachary David.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

*84Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 3rd of September 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendant's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
STATE v. Jonathan Anthony UZZELL.

No. 169P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of April 2008 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."