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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              78
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,973
<PP&E>                                          24,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,751
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,590
<SALES>                                         47,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,805
<CGS>                                           41,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                       528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                916
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51286

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS FAVELA-GONZALEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(04-CR-459)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Luis Favela-Gonzalez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California,

1 asserting that there are no nonfrivolous issues on appeal. FavelaGonzalez has not filed a response. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 12, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51286

2 See U.S. v. Acquaye, 452 F.3d 380, 381 (5th Cir. 2006).

3 See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Counsel’s brief has satisfied Anders’ requirements sufficiently to trigger

our obligation to examine the record.2 Our independent review of the record and

counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.3
|   | (1) | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 30, 2011 | By:                                          | /s/ W. Jeffrey Sawyers |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                 | W. Jeffrey Sawyers                           |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer        |
|                 | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
North Carolina State Board of Education v. The State of North Carolina and The North Carolina Rules Review Commission

No. 110PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016.

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The North Carolina Rules Review Commission.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, Asheville, Andrew H. Erteschik, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for North Carolina State Board of Education.

*ORDER*

Defendants' Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are allowed for the limited purpose of vacating the order entered by the Court of Appeals on 2 March 2016 allowing Plaintiff-Appellee State Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Order entered by Judge Paul G. Gessner in this case on 2 July 2015 did not "hold[ ] that an act of the General Assembly is facially invalid on the basis that the act violates the North Carolina Constitution or federal," N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(al), and remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendants' challenges to the validity of the trial court's order on the merits. In light of that determination, Defendant's Petitions for Discretionary Review are dismissed and Defendant North Carolina Rules Review Commission's Notice of Appeal is dismissed *ex mero motu.*

By order of the Court in Conference, this 9th day of June, 2016.
In the Matter of: T.A.T., R.W.T., Minor Juveniles.

No. COA16-688

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
State of North Carolina v. Odessia Maynor

No. COA15-1159

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008092EN.01004902.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/49

---

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Maniscalco v Commission

(Case F-141/07)

(2008/C 92/100)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Daniele Maniscalco (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Cardarello and F. D'amora, avvocati)

Applicant

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant

Re

Annulment of the decision to recruit the applicant in Function Group IV, at Grade 13, step 1.

Forms of order sought

| — | annul decision ADMIN.B.2/OG/jmt/D(07)23504; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision ADMIN.B.2/OG/jmt/D(07)23504;

| — | declare the claim for recruitment at a higher grade and for payment of the resulting difference in salary as at the date of establishment of the report recognising the applicant's entitlement to recruitment at grade 16 to be well founded |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the claim for recruitment at a higher grade and for payment of the resulting difference in salary as at the date of establishment of the report recognising the applicant's entitlement to recruitment at grade 16 to be well founded

| — | order the Directorate General for Personnel and administration — Directorate A — Staff and Careers to pay the sum owed, with interest and costs, corresponding to the difference between a grade 13 salary and the grade 16 salary to which the applicant was entitled; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Directorate General for Personnel and administration — Directorate A — Staff and Careers to pay the sum owed, with interest and costs, corresponding to the difference between a grade 13 salary and the grade 16 salary to which the applicant was entitled;

| — | appoint the applicant for the future at grade 16 as a member of the contract staff in the appropriate step for the number of years' experience he has. |
| --- | --- |

—

appoint the applicant for the future at grade 16 as a member of the contract staff in the appropriate step for the number of years' experience he has.

---
STATE v. Steven FAISON-EL.

No. 293P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Steven Faison, Taylorsville, for Faison, Steven.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of August 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
Thelma Riggsbee, Employee, Plaintiff, v. Durham City Transit Company, Employer, Key Risk Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA15-1276

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136204 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136204 

 COA: 275687 

Wayne CC: 06-007700-01

ANTHONY DESHAWN DOZIER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

KELLY, J. (dissenting). 

I would grant leave to appeal the March 25, 2008, judgment of the Court of 

Appeals to consider whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecution’s 

violation of MCR 6.201(B)(3). The prosecution violated the rule by failing to disclose 

defendant’s July 26, 2006, statement to the defense until it was used to impeach him 

during cross-examination at trial. The record suggests that the statement was obtained in 

violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel because counsel was not 

present when the statement was made. Also, there is no evidence of a valid waiver of 

counsel’s presence, even though defendant had been arraigned and counsel had been 

appointed when the statement was obtained. It therefore appears that the prosecution’s 

belated disclosure of the post-arraignment statement deprived defendant of a fair trial. 

s0923 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2008 

Clerk
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Randy S. Leiser, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        May 14, 2004 By:  /s/ RANDY S. LEISER    Randy S. Leiser    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Billy Thomas PEARSON

426P06-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Billy Thomas Pearson, Pro Se.

Ms. Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of November 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
May 24, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSHUA MORALES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00829

- CV V.

NEOMI FERNANDEZ , Appellee

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on July 1, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by
JOSHUA MORALES

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6984
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 02-7097
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.2 No. 02-7396
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of V irginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: November 6, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen E. McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Stephen E. McClelland seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motions for arbitration and for appointment of counsel. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that McClelland has not satisfied either standard. SeeMcClelland v. Angelone , No. CA-01-105-2 (E.D. Va. filed June 7,4 2002, & entered June 10, 2002; filed June 17, 2002, & entered June 18, 2002; Aug. 13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability in each appeal and dismiss the appeals. We deny McClelland’s motions for appointment of counsel, to reconsider our order deferring action on the motion for appointment of counsel, to transfer the record from state court, and for an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.43

                                Amendment to the
                               Dime Bancorp, Inc.

                             Officer Incentive Plan

                         Effective as of January 1, 1998

            The Dime Bancorp, Inc. Officer Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended in the following particulars:

            1. The third textual sentence of Section 1 of the Plan is amended to
read as follows:

            "The Plan is made up of three parts, the Dime Bancorp, Inc. Senior
            Officer Incentive Plan, the Dime Bancorp, Inc. Senior Management
            Incentive Plan, and the Dime Bancorp, Inc. Middle Management
            Incentive Plan (the "Underlying Plans")."

            2. The first textual sentence of Section 2 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:

            "The Plan (and each of its parts) shall be administered by the
            Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the
            "Committee") or such other committee of the Board of Directors of
            the Company (or any subcommittee of any such committee) as may be
            provided under the terms of the Underlying Plans."

            3. The third textual sentence of Section 2 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:

            "Except as may otherwise be provided under the terms of the
            Underlying Plans, the Committee shall have the authority, in its
            discretion, to adopt, amend and rescind such rules and regulations
            as, in its opinion, may be advisable in the administration of the
            Plan and each of the Underlying Plans."

            4. The second textual sentence of Section 4 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:

            "However, except as provided under the terms of the Underlying
            Plans, no such action, amendment, suspension or termination of the
            Plan shall, without any Plan participant's consent, alter or impair
            any rights or obligations with respect to any awards granted to a
            participant under the Plan."
Kathleen SPITZER-TREMBLAY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.

No. COA16-334

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                             KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                       Two Central Park Plaza, Suite 1501
                                Omaha, NE  68102
                                 (402) 348-1450





                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Shareholders and Board of Directors
   of Supertel Hospitality, Inc.:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
33-80462 on Form S-8 of Supertel Hospitality, Inc. of our report, dated January
31, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Supertel Hospitality,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996.


                                                  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


                                                    /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 21, 1997
# C_2008171EN.01003501.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/35

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Kronberger v Parliament

(Case T-18/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Act concerning election to the European Parliament - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 171/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W. Weh, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005 rejecting as unfounded the applicant's challenge relating to the election of Andreas Mölzer as a Member of the European Parliament, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Hans Kronberger is ordered to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Hans Kronberger is ordered to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---