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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of January 22, 2000; the Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the 12 Weeks Ended January 22, 2000;
and the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the 12 Weeks Ended
January 22, 2000
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-22-2000
<CASH>                                           1,482
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1992
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,697
<PP&E>                                          51,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,294
<SALES>                                        146,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,463
<CGS>                                          117,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (47)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   384
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,057
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
espi_ex1013.htm


EXHIBIT 10.13


ESP RESOURCES, INC.


1255 Lions Club Road


Scott, LA  70583







November 18, 2010







Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC


440 North Wells, Suite 620


Chicago, IL 60654


Attention:  Josh Scheinfeld/Jonathan Cope







Re: Purchase Agreement/Amendment







Gentlemen:







This letter agreement (the “Agreement”) documents our understanding regarding amending that certain Purchase Agreement dated September 16, 2010 (the “Purchase Agreement”) between Lincoln Park Capital Fund, LLC and ESP Resources, Inc. (the “Company”).  This Agreement hereby amends the Purchase Agreement by deleting the following from Section 11(a) of the Purchase Agreement:







“By the Investor any time an Event of Default exists without any liability or payment to the Company.  However, if”







The deleted portion above shall be replaced by:







“If”







All other terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Please sign below acknowledging your acceptance to this Agreement.








	  	
Sincerely yours,

	  
	  	  	  
	  	
/s/ David Dugas

	  
	  	
David Dugas

	  
	  	
President

	  










Acknowledged and agreed to as of the date written above:







LINCOLN PARK CAPITAL FUND, LLC


BY:  LINCOLN PARK CAPITAL, LLC


BY:  Rockledge Capital Corporation



	
 


/s/ Josh Scheinfeld

	  	  	  	  
	
Josh Scheinfeld

	  	  	  	  
	
President
In re B.M.A., a juvenile.

No. COA15-787.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       AUGUST 31,   AUGUST 31,   AUGUST 26,   AUGUST 31,   AUGUST 30,
                                                          1993         1994         1995         1996         1997
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense...................................   $   8,492    $   8,913    $   9,237    $   9,455    $   9,235
  Amortization of debt expense.......................         963          933          957          720          661
  Rental expense included in fixed charges...........       4,562        4,548        4,342        3,949        3,802
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
    Total fixed charges..............................   $  14,017    $  14,394    $  14,536    $  14,124    $  13,698
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
 
Earnings:
  Pre-tax (loss) income..............................   $ (11,670)   $ (14,556)   $  (5,672)   $  (1,066)   $    (921)
  Plus: fixed charges................................      14,017       14,394       14,536       14,124       13,698
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
    Total earnings...................................   $   2,347    $    (162)   $   8,864    $  13,058    $  12,777
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...................      n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a          n/a
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
[TRANSLATED FROM THE HEBREW]

                            MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
                            -------------------------

1.       The company's name: Scanvec Co. (1990) Ltd.

2.       The objects for which the company is formed:

         (a)      Development, manufacture, marketing and trade in software,
                  computer systems, computer equipment and ancillary products
                  for computers.

         (b)      Development, manufacture and sale of scanner software and all
                  manner of computer hardware.

         (c)      To carry on business as distributors, marketers, importers,
                  exporters, establishers, operators and experts in the sphere
                  of software and hardware.

         (d)      Any lawful object passed in general meeting and approved by
                  the board of directors.

3.       The members' liability is limited.

4.       The share capital is NIS 10,006,  divided into 10,000 ordinary  shares,
         five founder shares and one preferred share, each of NIS 1.

We the  undersigned  wish to incorporate in accordance  with this memorandum and
each agree to take the number of shares appearing against our respective names.


<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     Subscribers' names                         Number of shares
                 (I.D., address, description)                       taken                   Signatures
                 ----------------------------                   ----------------            ----------
<S>                           <C>                               <C>                          <C>
1.      Ramon Harel, I.D. No. 201989                            20 ordinary                 (Signed)
        11 Mechula St., Ramat Efal                              1 founder

2.      Zvi Eintracht, I.D. No. 56589666                        20 ordinary                 (Signed)
        3 Shlomo Ben Yosef St., Bat Yam                         1 founder
                                                                1 preferred

3.      Zvi Haveh Software Services Ltd.                        23 ordinary                 (Signed & stamped)
        3 Yatkovsky St., Petach Tikva                           1 founder
        Private Company No. 51-1076762

4.      Imagesoft Ltd.                                          16 ordinary                 (Signed & stamped)
        41/24 Bialik St., Ness Ziona                            1 founder
        Private Company No. 51-132103

5.      Avim Braun, German passport 69389261                    13 ordinary                 (Signed & stamped by the
        C/o Adv. Ben-Nathan, 1/9 Ben Yehuda St, Tel Aviv        1 founder                   attorney, Adv. Rami
        64 N. Mar Viesta, #125                                                              Ben-Nathan)
        Pasadena, California, 91106 USA
</TABLE>

Witness to the aforegoing signatures -

(Signed & stamped)
-------------------
Dina Yahav, Adv.


                      [Stamp of the Registrar of Companies]

                                                                               2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1910

In Re: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and a pro se petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the

Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act affords to victims of crime the

rights to receive notice of court proceedings, to be heard at court

proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive

restitution, to be free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated

with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). The Act provides that these

rights shall be asserted in the district court and that “[i]f the

district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition

the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3771(c)(3). If such a petition is filed, “[t]he court of appeals

shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours

after the petition has been filed.” Id. Furthermore, “[i]f the

court of appeals denies the relief sought, the reasons for the

denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.”

Id.

Petitioner Rochester moves, as a kidnap victim, for relief

from his “kidnapped status.” He asserts that he has been held in

state custody 23 years, 9 months, and 17 1⁄2 days beyond his maximum

release date for crimes that carried no penalty or only a fine. He

claims to be the victim of forged warrants, conspiracy, double

jeopardy violations, threats, and other illegalities. 
3

Petitioner has raised these and other claims in numerous

actions in the district court and on appeal. He has been subject

to a pre-filing review order in the District of South Carolina

since January 1996. In re Rochester, Misc. No. 2:95-MC-131 (D.S.C.

Jan. 29, 1996). He has filed 29 prior cases in this Court and

been granted relief in none of them.

The statutory provision for expedited mandamus review of the

district court’s denial of rights asserted under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3771(a) has no application to the claims asserted by Rochester.

Rochester’s claims are attacks on the legality of his confinement,

which have been fully litigated in prior habeas corpus actions. He

has not been denied any right under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) which could

form the basis for a mandamus petition to this Court.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismisses this mandamus petition. Petitioner is

warned that any further effort to raise these claims will result in

issuance of an order to show cause why a pre-filing injunction

should not be entered against him by this Court. See In re

Vincent, 105 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1997).

PETITION DISMISSED
----

(2004/C 65 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Network of cycle paths

Belgium has an extensive network of cycle paths for tourism and recreation. Many of these cycle routes have been created thanks to European grants. I should like to have more information about the subsidies granted to Belgian cycle routes.

Can the Commission provide details of the EU subsidies granted to Belgian cycle routes in 2002 in 2003?

What amount was allocated to cycle routes in the province of East Flanders?

What are the Commission's plans for the allocation of European funds in 2004 and subsequent years? Will subsidies be granted for measures in the province of East Flanders?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2717/03 and E-2718/03

given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

Under the present regional policy rules, in this particular case those on part-financing of projects from the Structural Funds, project selection is an exclusive responsibility of the managing authority for each programme, always of course subject to compliance with the wording of the priorities and measures set out in the programming document and its complement.

Thus the granting of European funds under the structural policy should be looked at as part-financing of projects selected by the Member State rather than as an actual subsidy from the Commission.

For Flanders Region as a whole, 2002 and 2003 has seen approval of cycle route projects totalling EUR 5 582 503,81 for which the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contribution is EUR 1268 302,96.

In the province of Antwerp EUR 277 099 has been granted for the Recreatief fietsroutenetwerk in the Grande Nethe area (total project cost EUR 1 108 394) and in East Flanders EUR 20 834,11 for the Schaarse Wegel cycle route project at Bassevelde (total project cost EUR 83 336,40).

It goes without saying that any cycle route projects that are subsequently presented and are in line with the objectives of the programme measures will be part-financed from the ERDF at the rate specified in the programme complement.

As far as the Walloon Region is concerned, the managing authority for the Meuse-Vesdre Programme expects, for the entire programming period, to approve projects for the cycle route network costing a total of EUR 13 218 470,38, of which the ERDF will pay EUR 6 654 735,19.

No cycle route network projects have been part-financed by the Structural Funds in the Brussels Capital Region in 2002 or in 2003. Given the wording of the measures in the programme it is unlikely that any are to be presented.

----
In the matter of T.F.L., S.D.L., and B.A.N.L.

No. 366P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Mark L. Flayes, Attorney at Law, for Lovely, Kimberly Dawn.

Paul W. Freeman, Wilkesboro, Attorney at Law, for Wilkes County DSS.

Neil A. Riemann, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for GAL.

*484*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of November 2015 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 28th of January 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-02-1998
<CASH>                                         31,683
<SECURITIES>                                   12,761         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                      188
<INVENTORY>                                     1,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               62,084 
<PP&E>                                        948,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                195,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                845,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          87,728
<BONDS>                                       696,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           63
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  845,065
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              243,426
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  89,768 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              116,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             41,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,396)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (518)
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,914)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)
        

</TABLE>
Lessee that it has fully vacated the Premises) to terminate the Lease at any time thereafter andtake possession of the Premises, **provided**Lessor prorates the rent and refunds to Lessee any rentthat Lessee has previously paid to Lessor for any period of time after the date of termination. Insuch event, Lessee shall have no obligation to pay rent to Lessor for any period of time after thedate on which Lessor has terminated the Lease.**2. Capitalized Terms.**     All capitalized terms used in this Amendment, which are not defined herein, shall have thesame meaning as in the Lease.**3. Miscellaneous.**     Except as set forth herein, the Lease remains in full force and effect. This Amendment may beexecuted in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. Delivery of anexecuted signature page to this Amendment by facsimile transmission shall be as effective asdelivery of a manually signed counterpart hereto.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Third Amendment to Lease as of thedate first set forth above.           **LESSEE**   **LESSOR**             LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC.,   JEPCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC,  a Wisconsin corporation   an Oregon limited liability company             By: /s/ Joseph P. Schneider   By: /s/ John Herman     Name: Joseph P. Schneider      Name: John Herman    Its: President, CEO     Its: Partner  Page 2  —  THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE
CHANDLER v. ATLANTIC SCRAP AND PROCESSING, et al.

No. 35PA12-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Daniel S. Walden, Winston-Salem, for Chandler, Connie.

Duane Jones, Charlotte, for Atlantic Scrap and Processing, et al.

Hatcher B. Kincheloe, Charlotte, for Atlantic Scrap and Processing, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of January 2016 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
# CE2004088EN.01046001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/460 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/460

---

(2004/C 88 E/0472)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3319/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Mines and migrants on the Greek-Turkish border

Subject:

On numerous occasions in recent years, many migrants have lost their lives attempting to cross the Greek-Turkish border. Recently, seven Pakistanis were blown to pieces attempting to cross the Greek-Turkish border through a minefield. According to information from the Greek General Army Staff, since 1999 31 illegal immigrants have been killed by mines while attempting to enter Greece from Turkey.

Bearing in mind that the Greek-Turkish border is also the external border of the European Union, will the Commission say:

| 1. | what view it takes of this situation in the light of Parliament's resolution on anti-personnel landmines (B5-0802/2000) (1) in which Parliament asks the European Union to commit itself to work towards the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

what view it takes of this situation in the light of Parliament's resolution on anti-personnel landmines (B5-0802/2000) (1) in which Parliament asks the European Union to commit itself to work towards the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, and

1

| 2. | what steps it will take to clear the minefields at its external (Greek-Turkish) borders, taking into account the international community's recognition of the prominent role played by the European Union and the fact that the Union offers its support for measures to deal with mines in all countries affected by them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps it will take to clear the minefields at its external (Greek-Turkish) borders, taking into account the international community's recognition of the prominent role played by the European Union and the fact that the Union offers its support for measures to deal with mines in all countries affected by them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

(10 December 2003)

On 25 September 2003 Greece and Turkey formally joined the Mine Ban Treaty. The Commission hopes that this joint move will put an end to the suffering caused by anti-personnel mines on the border between the two countries.

In addition, as part of the confidence building measures agreed in the context of their bilateral relations, both countries have undertaken to clear their border areas from landmines as mentioned in the Commission's Regular Report of November 2001 (2).

2

Council Regulation (EC) No 1725/2001 of 23 July 2001 concerning action against anti-personnel landmines in third countries other than developing countries (3) does not apply to Member States.

3

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 193.

1

(2)  COM(2001) 700 final.

2

(3)  OJ L 234, 1.9.2001.

3

---