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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      27,767,449              31,844,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,957                  77,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,926,874              32,021,980
<PP&E>                                       6,719,000               4,948,891
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,162,235                 976,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,034,259              36,523,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,541,816               1,403,477
<BONDS>                                      2,464,717               2,655,737
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        93,016                  92,857
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,934,710              32,371,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,034,259              36,523,645
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,511,396               2,721,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             312,927                 163,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,985,230)             (2,461,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,985,230)             (2,461,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,985,230)             (2,461,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.54)                  ($.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.54)                  ($.27)


</TABLE>
Richard O'Neal, Employee v. Inline Fluid Power, Inc. & Automotive Parts Co., Inc., Employer,

Auto Owners Insurance Company, Carrier

No. 261PA15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 21, 2016

Jernigan Law Firm, by Leonard T. Jernigan, Jr., Raleigh, Anthony L. Lucas, and Kristina B. Thompson, for plaintiff-appellant.

McAngus Goudelock & Courie, Charlotte, by Viral V. Mehta and Carl M. Short III, for defendant-appellees.

Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., Charlotte, by M. Duane Jones, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,446
<SECURITIES>                                       978
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          38,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,785<F1>
<BONDS>                                            529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,607
<SALES>                                          7,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,799
<CGS>                                            4,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (461)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,962
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
<FN>
<F1>The Company utilizes an unclassified balance sheet presentation. This format
was followed based on the premise that the videocassete rental inventory 
represents assets used by the Company to generate current operating income, and 
management believes that to classify all of these costs as noncurrent would be 
misleading to the readers of the financial statements because it would not 
indicate the level of assets expected to be converted into cash in the next year
as a result of the rentals of the videocassettes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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.

Levi n son 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

. " A lthough 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 S ervices C orporation, 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.
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries of PSS World Medical, Inc.



|                                                            |  |                    |  |                                                 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Name of Domestic Subsidiary                                 |  | State of Formation |  | (Names under which
Subsidiary conducts business)
|Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc.                             |  | Delaware           |  |                                                 
|Physician Sales & Service, Inc.                             |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|Physician Sales & Service Limited Partnership               |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|PSS Holding, Inc.                                           |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|PSS Service, Inc.                                           |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|ThriftyMed, Inc.                                            |  | Florida            |  |                                                 
|WorldMed Shared Services, Inc.                              |  | Florida            |  | PSS World Medical Shared Services, Inc.         
|                                                            |  |                    |  | Gulf South Medical Shared Services, Inc.        
|Proclaim, Inc.                                              |  | Tennessee          |  |                                                 
|Ancillary Management Solutions, Inc.                        |  | Tennessee          |  |                                                 
|Cascade Medical Supply, Inc.                                |  | Washington         |  |                                                 
|PSS Global Holdings                                         |  | Bermuda            |  |                                                 
|PSS Global Sourcing CBT                                     |  | China              |  |                                                 
|PSS China Sourcing Limited  Shanghai Representative Office |  | China              |  |                                                 
|PSS Global Sourcing Hong Kong Limited                       |  | Hong Kong          |  |                                                 
|PSS HK1 Limited                                             |  | Hong Kong          |  |                                                 
|PSS Global Sourcing Limited                                 |  | Hong Kong          |  |                                                 
|PSS China Sourcing Limited                                  |  | Hong Kong          |  |                                                 
|PSS Southeast Asia Limited                                  |  | Malaysia           |  |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CASEY JAMES PERKINS A/K/A

JIMMY PERKINS

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 068

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20 18 0D 0 1802 )

O R D E R

The Court has this day considered the Honorable Maria Salas

- Mendoza’s request for

extension of time to conduct the hearing and concludes the motion should be GRANTED.

Therefore, the trial court has until October 12 , 201 9 to hold the hearing pursuant to this

Court’s order of September 5 , 201 9

. The District Clerk shall prepa re and forward a supplemental

clerk ’ s record containing the trial court ’ s orders and/or findings on or before October 19, 2019

.

Further, the transcription of the hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with this Court on or

before October 19, 2019

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16 th d ay of September , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM
Cynthia W. MAJERSKE, Plaintiff, v. Timothy S. MAJERSKE, Defendant.

No. COA15-839.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1579.

#### Henderson *v.*The State.

Indictment for attempt to wreck train, from Floyd superior court —Judge Wright. October 14, 1908.

Submitted January 13,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*F. W. Copeland,*for plaintiff in error.

*John W. Bale, solicitor-general, Ennis & Shaw,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. A person coerced, by fear of danger to life or limb, to join with another in the commission of a crime is not an accomplice. Penal Code, § 41; *Beal*v. *State,*72 Ga. 200.

2. The coercion necessary to relieve a person joining in the commission of a crime from such responsibility as to make him an accomplice must be such as to put him in danger of his life or member, or in reasonable fear that his life or limb is in danger. However, where in a given case the alleged coercion consisted in a threat to kill, made by a person having a gun as a present means of executing the threat, it was not error to charge that although “he [the person alleged to have been coerced] might have taken some part in the commission of this crime, if it was committed, but you should find that that which he did was not free and voluntary upon his own part, but was forced upon him, that he did it under duress, did it because he was afraid not to do it, then, in that event, I charge you he would not be an accomplice.” The < duress mentioned in the charge, taken in connection with the circumstances proved, necessarily referred to a coercion brought about by the fear of a danger to life or member.

3. Where the defendant puts in evidence his character by introducing witnesses who testify that his character is good, the State may reply by showing, on cross-examination or otherwise, that he had previously been confined in the chain-gang or penitentiary. Upon this subject an instruction to the jury in the following language, “I have permitted to go before you certain evidence as to whether or not the defendant in this case at one time served in the chain-gang of Floyd county, or some other place of confinement perhaps; that goes before you not for the purpose of showing his bad character, but for the purpose of aiding you, if it does so, in determining whether or not the testimony of these parties, who testified as to his good character, was or was not the truth in this case,” was not harmful error to the accused. If there is error at all in this instruction, the error consists in the limitation placed upon the effect of the testimony; and this being favorable to the defendant, rather than against him, he will not be allowed to complain. The evidence supports the verdict, and no material or harmful error is found in the record. *Judgment affirmed.*
Montessori Children's House of Durham v. Philip Blizzard and Patricia Blizzard

No. 45P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Robert C. Ekstrand, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Blizzard, Philip, et al.

David O. Lewis, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Montessori Children's House of Durham.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of February 2016 by Defendants 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 18th of August 2016."
# C_2008327EN.01002301.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2008 — Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM — Camper (Representation of a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour)

(Case T-304/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 327/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Calzaturificio SpA (San Giovanni Ilarione, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Camper, SL (Inca, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 in Case R 768/2006-1 relating to opposition proceedings between Camper, SL and Calzaturificio Frau SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Calzaturificio Frau SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Calzaturificio Frau SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)                  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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                Registrant. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                              |   |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                  Robert E.                  Rook                                                                              |   |   |   |   |
| Robert                  E.                  RookChief                    Executive OfficerMakeup.com                      Limited |   |   |   |   |
State of North Carolina v. Christopher Allen McKiver

No. 213PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, For McKiver, Christopher Allen.

Joseph E. Herrin, Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 3rd of June 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of June 2016 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### REVISED AUGUST 28, 2008 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60096 Summary Calendar

GOVINDA PRASAD PYAKUREL Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A98 548 951
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nepalese citizen Govinda Prasad Pyakurel petitions for review of the decisions of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum, withholding ofremoval, and reliefunder the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and denying his motion to reopen his proceedings. Pyakurel contends that the BIA and the Immigration Judge incorrectly relied on inconsistencies and implausibilities that did not go to the heart of his claims. He argues that his United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 27, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60096

2 motion to reopen should have been granted because the inclusion of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the Nepalese government and the expansion of the Maoist presence in Kathmandu suggest that he cannot safely reside in that city. The BIA (even assuming the general credibility of Pyakurel’s evidence) determined that Pyakurel had not demonstrated either past persecution on a protected ground or a well grounded fear of such persecution. The record does not compel the conclusion that the some fifteen minute incident of December 30, 2003 in Damak

– in which Pyakurel, while walking on a road, was attacked by local Maoist rebels who knocked him down and kicked him, inj uring his left toe, unsuccessfully demanding 80,000 rupees (about $1,000) of Pyakurel

– constituted persecution. See, e.g., Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997). Nor does the record compel the conclusion that any fear on Pyakurel’s part of persecution after he returned to his home city of Kathmandu (to which he took a plane following the December 30 incident), where he, his wife and children made their home, where he had lived since 1994, and where neither he nor any of his family had ever suffered any persecution, would be a well founded or objectively reasonable fear. See, e.g., Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445-46 (5th Cir. 2001). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pyakurel’s motion to reopen. The March 31, 2007 settlement in which the Maoists became a part of the government does not show that they took any control of the Army, or of law enforcement or the police, or of the local government in Kathmandu, or that the authorities there were substantially unable or unwilling to stop Maoist persecution there of persons such as Pyakurel. PETITIONS DENIED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-2011

JAN SWALLOW,

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v. 

FETZER VINEYARDS, BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION, and

WILLIAM CASCIO,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on September 3, 2002, is

amended as follows:

Page 19, last line: Replace "Casio" with "Cascio".