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


<ARTICLE>                                   5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      209,793
<SECURITIES>                                9,852,294
<RECEIVABLES>                               637,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,699,447
<PP&E>                                      1,351,852
<DEPRECIATION>                              (606,793)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,444,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,820,143
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  6,624,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,444,506
<SALES>                                     9,099,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            9,099,524
<CGS>                                       6,653,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               6,653,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,225,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          125,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,095,450
<INCOME-TAX>                                495,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                599,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.21
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40968

ROLAND MORENO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J. A. COLLINS; PEREZ, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-C-95-270)

January 9, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Prisoner-appellant Roland Moreno filed a notice of appeal in this civil action

before April 26, 1996, the effective date of the Priso n Litigation Reform Act of2

1995 (PLRA). The PLRA requires a prisoner appealing i n forma pauperis in a civil

action to pay the full amount of the filing fee, $105. If funds for immediate

payment are not available, this court is to assess and, when funds exist, collect, as

a partial payment of the filing fee, 20 percent of the greater of: (a) the average

monthly deposits to Moreno’s trust-fund account, or (b) the average monthly

balance in that account for the six-month period immediately preceding November

17, 1995, the date of the filing of the notice of appeal herein. After payment of the

initial partial filing fee, funds shall be deducted from Moreno’s account until the

full filing fees are paid. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),(2). Adepegba v. Hammons

,

___ F.3d ___, 1996 WL 742523 (5th Cir., Dec. 31, 1996).

Moreno has 30 days from the date of this order to comply with the PLRA

requirements, including:

1) payment of the appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court;

or

2)(a) the filing in this court of an affidavit s tating all assets that Moreno

possesses; and

(b) the filing of a certified statement by the custodian of Moreno’s trustfund account for the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the filing

of the notice of appeal herein.3

The clerk of this court is directed to provide Moreno with the proper forms

for compliance herewith.

This appeal is held in abeyance until Moreno complies herewith or until the

expiration of 30 days, whichever comes first. If Moreno does not comply within

the 30 days, the clerk of this court is directed to dismiss the appeal for lack of

prosecution. See Fifth Circuit Rule 42.3.

APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE. COSTS ORDER ENTERED.
10.4 SteveMcGillExtensionLetter


Exhibit 10.4




Steve McGill
Aon Risk Solutions
United States (U.S.)


July 1, 2014


Relocation Assignment Extension


Dear Steve - 


This letter documents the extension of your international assignment for an additional twenty-four (24) months. For the duration of your ongoing assignment, you will continue to work exclusively for the benefit of Aon plc.  Your current reporting relationship to the Chief Executive Officer of Aon plc and role as Group President of Aon plc and CEO of Aon Risk remain unchanged.  As an executive, Aon plc may require you to resign from any directorship or other corporate office in Aon plc or any affiliate of Aon plc at any time without compensation and/or take up any other directorship or corporate office for Aon plc instead of or in addition to such directorship or other office without any additional remuneration.
With the exception of the changes outlined below, which amend and supplement the terms of the attached original assignment letter dated January 12, 2012 (Attachment), the terms and conditions of your assignment remain unchanged and in full force.
		
	1)
	Effective July 1, 2014, your annual cost of living allowance (COLA) is USD 97,500.  This reflects a foreign exchange rate of USD 1.70 to GBP 1.00


		
	2)
	Your car allowance remains unchanged.


		
	3)
	Effective July 1, 2014, your COLA and car allowances will be grossed up for applicable U.S. taxes.  All allowances will continue to be equalized for tax differential according to Aon’s tax equalization policy as described in your original assignment letter.


		
	4)
	The exchange rates for the COLA will be reviewed quarterly and adjusted accordingly to reflect foreign exchange variation.  I will meet with you to review the quarterly adjustment methodology.


During your assignment, all components of your remuneration and benefits package are provided in consideration of your work on behalf of Aon plc and any corporate office held for such entity.


If you agree to the terms of this extension please sign the declaration below and return to me.  Please contact me or your manager with any questions.


Sincerely - 


/s/ Gregory J. Besio
Gregory J. Besio
EVP and Chief Human Resources Officer








I acknowledge receipt of this letter of understanding and accept the terms and conditions contained herein.


	
			
	/s/ Steve McGill
	 
	July 1, 2014

	Steve McGill
	 
	Date
STATE of North Carolina v. Dawn Elizabeth OSTEEN, Defendant.

No. COA 15-546.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
State of North Carolina v. Shawn Louis Goodman

No. 358P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Shawn L. Goodman, Pro Per.

Ms. Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Brandy Cook, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th of August 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Rowan County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-350-CV

ELIAS WEHBE, GEORGE WEHBE, 					      APPELLANTS

AND METROPLEX TOWING AND AUTO	

	V.

PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL AUTO 					  APPELLEE

INSURANCE COMPANY	

	----------

	FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On September 5, 2008 and September 19, 2008, we notified appellants, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellants have not paid the $175 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellants have failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.  

DELIVERED:  October 9, 2008
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 – Bodegas Montebello v OHIM – Montebello (MONTEBELLO
RHUM AGRICOLE)**

**(Case T-430/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE – Earlier national word mark MONTEBELLO – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood
of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 36, 39)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the
earlier mark – Partial use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 42-43)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2007 (Case R 223/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Montebello, SA and Montebello SARL. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Montebello SARL |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE for goods in Class 33 – Application No 2666386 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Bodegas Montebello, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Spanish word mark MONTEBELLO for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1148196 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal allowed, Decision of the Opposition Division annulled. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Bodegas Montebello, SA to pay the costs. |
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00568-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE FERNANDO GARCIA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Fernando Garcia, pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court

to provide him with the clerk’s record and court reporter’s records pertaining to his

conviction for intoxication manslaughter. This Court previously affirmed the conviction.

See Garcia v. State, No. 13-06-00488-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 5990, at *8 (Tex.

App.–Corpus Christi Aug. 7, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op. not designated for publication). In

that appeal, relator was represented by appointed counsel.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
2

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 10th day of October, 2008.
# C_2009267EN.01005602.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/56

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)

(Case T-80/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark BUILT TO RESIST - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/96

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: JanSport Apparel Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, C. Casalonga and K. Dimidjian-Lecompte, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen initially, and subsequently by O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of 12 January 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1090/2006-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BUILT TO RESIST as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JanSport Apparel Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JanSport Apparel Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2008092EN.01004604.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/46

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — IXI Mobile v OHIM — Klein (IXI)

(Case T-78/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 92/93)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Fred M. Powell, Chief Financial Officer of Beijing Med-Pharm Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

|   | (1) |   | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ FRED M. POWELL

Fred M. PowellChief Financial Officer

August 14, 2006

 

----
# C_2009153EN.01005002.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/50

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2009 — Opus Arte UK v OHIM — Arte (OPUS ARTE)

(Case T-170/07) (1)

1

2009/C 153/95

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                   FUSION SYSTEMS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                               EARNINGS PER SHARE

               CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED-AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                            1996             1995             1994
                                                                           -------         -------          -------
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>             <C>
Weighted-Average Common Stock Outstanding...........................        7,732            7,659           6,736

Dilutive effect of outstanding options (using treasury stock ethod)           290              461             538

Treasury Stock effect of 188,760 options to acquire Common Stock
granted in the twelve months prior to the initial public offering...           --               --               3
                                                                            -----            -----           -----

Weighted-Average Shares Outstanding.................................        8,022            8,120           7,277
                                                                            =====            =====           =====
</TABLE>
STATE v. Sandra Meshell BRICE

244PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 9, 2017

Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Brice, Sandra Meshell.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Nancy D. Hardison, Assistant Attorney General, Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of March 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of March 2017."

*787Defendant shall have up to and including the 12th day of April 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3089-18T1

JOHN RUTTLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PSE&G,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

VERIZON, BUCKEYE PA

TERMINAL, LLC, and 

COLONIAL PIPELINE,

Defendants.

__________________________

Submitted May 4, 2020 – Decided May 29, 2020

Before Judges Messano and Susswein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-2731-17.

Levinson Axelrod, PA, attorneys for appellant (Adam 

L. Rothenberg, on the briefs).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3089-18T1

PSE&G Services Corporation, attorneys for respondent 

(Peter L. Agostini and Natalie F. Dallavalle, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

We have been advised prior to argument that this matter has been amicably 

adjusted, and the parties have stipulated to dismissal of this appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4046 

To strike provisions that prohibit the Director of the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy from studying the legalization of marijuana, that 

require the Director to oppose any attempt to legalize marijuana, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees 

on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To strike provisions that prohibit the Director of the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy from studying the legalization of marijuana, that require the Director to oppose 

any attempt to legalize marijuana, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Unmuzzle the Drug 

5 Czar Act of 2014’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4046 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION AND REQUIREMENT ON 

2 THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL 

3 DRUG CONTROL POLICY RELATING TO MARI4 JUANA. 

5 Section 704(b) of the Office of National Drug Control 

6 Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1703(b)) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) by striking paragraph (12); 

9 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (13) through 

10 (20) as paragraphs (12) through (19), respectively; 

11 and 

12 (3) in paragraph (13)(A), as so redesignated, 

13 by striking ‘‘paragraph (13)’’ and inserting ‘‘para14 graph (12)’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. Howard Franlin EUBANKS

436P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2016

*682James Rainsford, Attorney at Law, Hillsborough, Cyrus Quinn Griswold, Attorney at Law, for Eubanks, Howard Franklin.

Neil C. Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of December 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2016."