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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,801
<PP&E>                                           2,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,491
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,906
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,144
<SALES>                                          1,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,704
<CGS>                                            1,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    277
<INCOME-TAX>                                       109
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-14935-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.

    

    

    UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION BOARD

    

    

    

    

    The undersigned, being all the members of the Benefits Administration Board (the “Benefits Board”) appointed under the provisions of the Deferred
      Compensation Plan of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (the “Plan”) and acting in their settlor capacities pursuant to the authority granted by the Board of Directors of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (the “Board”), do hereby unanimously consent to the
      adoption of the following resolutions with respect to the Plan.

    

    

    WHEREAS, John
        Wiley & Sons, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan to provide a select group of management and other highly compensated employees of the Company with the opportunity to defer receipt of a portion of their salary and bonus and to provide a
        means of restoring Company matching contributions lost under the John Wiley & Sons Inc. Employees’ Savings Plan due to the application of the limitations imposed on tax-qualified plans by Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
        as amended; and

    

    

    WHEREAS, at a
        meeting held on July 15, 2021, the Benefits Board approved the proposal to increase the amount of salary that a Plan participant may defer from 25% to 75% of Base Salary (as defined in the Plan); and

    

    

    WHEREAS,
        pursuant to the Unanimous Written Consent of the Board in May 2021 and effective March 24, 2021, the Benefits Board was granted the authority to amend the Plan, as it deems necessary, appropriate or desirable, to conform to the requirements of law
        or facilitate the administration of the Plan, and such other amendments that effectuate and support the purposes and objectives of the Plan provided that the cost of such other amendments is deemed immaterial as determined by the Benefits Board
        with the advice of counsel; and

    

    

    WHERAS, the Benefits Board deems it necessary, appropriate or desirable to amend the Plan as set forth below.

    NOW, THEREFORE be it:

    
      
        

        

        

        

      

      
        


      
        

        

      

    

    RESOLVED,
        that, Section 3.02(a) is amended effective January 1, 2022 by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof:

    

    

    		
            “On and after January 1, 2022, an Eligible Executive may defer up to 75% of Base Salary and up to 100% of Bonus.”

          


    

    

    This consent may be executed in any number of counterparts which together shall constitute one and the same consent.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22292]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
November 7, 2005:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 10 
a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (6), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(5), (6), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
November 10, 2005 will be:
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature;
    Opinion; and a
    Regulatory matter bearing enforcement implications.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 3, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22292 Filed 11-3-05; 4:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Presidential Documents

67899 

Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 215 

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 7959 of November 3, 2005 

Revoking Proclamation 7924 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

WHEREAS, the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United 

States Code, 40 U.S.C. 3141–3148, and the provisions of all other acts, 

Executive Orders, proclamations, rules, regulations, or other directives providing for the payment of wages, which provisions are dependent upon 

determinations by the Secretary of Labor under section 3142 of title 40, 

United States Code, were suspended by Proclamation 7924 of September 

8, 2005, within specified geographic areas affected by Hurricane Katrina 

until otherwise provided; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, acting under the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, including section 202 of the National 

Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622, do by this Proclamation revoke, effective 

November 8, 2005, Proclamation 7924 as to all contracts for which bids 

are opened or negotiations concluded on or after November 8, 2005. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of 

November, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth. 

W 

[FR Doc. 05–22427 

Filed 11–7–05; 9:32 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P
**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                Report 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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Signature: | /s/                Wilbert G.                Holliman                                                                            |
|--------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |       | Wilbert                G.                HollimanChairman                of the Board and Chief                Executive Officer |
|   |       |                                                                                                                             |
|   | Date:      | November                9,                2007                                                                                   |
#### American Fidelity Company of Montpelier, Vermont, Respondent, *v.*William E. D. Stokes, Appellant.

*American Fidelity Co. of Montpelier, Vt.,*v. *Stokes,*172 App. Div. 908, affirmed.

(Submitted October 18, 1918;

decided November 1, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 31, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. Two actions had been commenced in July, 1912, against this plaintiff to recover damages for loss of services and personal injuries growing out of an accident to an infant, claimed to be due to the negligence of this defendant’s chauffeur. The defense of both actions was undertaken by this plaintiff through its attorneys, under the terms of a policy of insurance whereby the respondent agreed to indemnify appellant to the extent of $10,000 against loss or expense on account of bodily injuries accidentally suffered by one person. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was defending the two actions above referred to pursuant to the policy and in consideration that the plaintiff would settle the said actions the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff towards the expense of such settlement the sum of $1,000 and that plaintiff in consideration of said promise of the appellant relinquished the defenses of the said actions and duly effected a settlement thereof and paid in settlement thereof the sum of $6,500. The answer, while admitting that the plaintiff was defending these actions and it did settle them, denied any agreement on defendant’s part to pay $1,000 in consideration of the respondent’s relinquishing the defenses of the actions and effecting the settlement. The only question in the case was whether or not any such contract was made.

*657
      *A. H. Gleason*for appellant.

*Joseph M. Proskauer*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. .

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J. Absent: Andrews, J.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 387

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CR-15-1007

 

ANDREW KEATON COX

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered September 7, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. CR-13-1377-6]

HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR,

JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

 Appellant Andrew Cox pled guilty to battery in the first degree in August 2014, and

he was sentenced to three years’ probation. The State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s

probation on January 9, 2015, alleging that he had violated its conditions by committing

domestic battery in the second degree and by failing to pay his court-ordered fees. The

revocation hearing took place on August 12, 2015. The court found that appellant had

violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment followed

by an additional three years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Appellant argues on appeal

that the trial court erred in allowing non-expert testimony. We do not reach the merits of

appellant’s case due to deficiencies in his brief, abstract, and addendum.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 387

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(A)1

 requires that an appellant create an abstract

of the material parts of the transcript in the record. Information is material if it is essential for

the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues

on appeal. Here, appellant has failed to abstract all of the material parts of the transcript,

including the testimony that formed the basis of this appeal as well as the court’s ruling and

the testimonial evidence relied on by the court to find appellant in violation. 

Additionally, the format used by appellant in the abstract is a violation of our rules. 

Appellant used the question-answer format, which is to be used only in extraordinary

situations where a short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without

losing important meaning.2

Appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief,

abstract, and addendum that complies with our rules.3 The deficiencies we have noted are

not to be taken as an exhaustive list. We strongly encourage counsel to review the rules and

to ensure that no other deficiencies are present prior to filing the substituted brief, abstract,

and addendum.

Rebriefing ordered.

GLADWIN, C.J., and HOOFMAN, J., agree.

Carey E. Lyles Dowdy, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1

(2015).

2Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(B)(2015).

3Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3)(2015).

2
* 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. 96-50057 Summary Calendar

WAYNE C. TRETTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. SPECIA, JR., JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas (SA-95-CV-1058)

July 5, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wayne C. Tretter, a Texas state prisoner, appeals the district court’s

assessment of costs in the amount of $120 following the dismissal as frivolous of

his pro se in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. Tretter seeks1 Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court , 474 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973).

2 Booker v. Koonce , 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993).

3 Moore v. McDonald , 30 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994).

2 an orde r from the court a 

### 4 quo directing the state court to set a trial date on a

pending state court action. Federal courts lack the authority to issue such an order 1

and the complaint is therefore legally f rivolous. 2 Under these circumstances the

district court’s dismissal with imposition of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (now

§ 1915(f)) was not an abuse of discretion. 3

AFFIRMED.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43859

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

TAYLOR JOHN KETLINSKI

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 745

Filed: October 25, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy L. Hansen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for burglary, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A.

Allred , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden , Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Taylor John Ketlinski was found guilty of burglary , Idaho Code § 18

- 1401 , and malicious

injury to property, I.C. § 18

- 7001(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years,

with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for the burglary charge and 180 days for

the malicious injury to property charge

. Ketlinski appeals, contending that his burgla ry sentence

is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Ketlinski ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, John Swallow, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: February 7, 2007.  /s/ John Swallow _______________________ John Swallow (CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1370 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain military 

survivor benefits as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KING, Mr. ISAKSON, Ms. 

BALDWIN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BURR, Mr. TESTER, Mr. 

DAINES, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CORNYN, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

COTTON, Mr. BROWN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. BENNET, Mr. SCOTT of South 

Carolina, Mr. CASEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. PETERS, and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain military survivor benefits as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax. 

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 ‘‘Gold Star Family Tax 

5 Relief Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1370 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFITS TREATED 

2 AS EARNED INCOME FOR KIDDIE TAX. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(g)(4) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(D) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN MILITARY

7 SURVIVOR BENEFITS.—For purposes of this 

8 subsection, any benefit under laws administered 

9 by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of 

10 Veterans Affairs which— 

11 ‘‘(i) is received by a child by reason of 

12 the child being the survivor of a deceased 

13 member of the Armed Forces or of a de14 ceased veteran, and 

15 ‘‘(ii) is included in the gross income of 

16 such child, 

17 shall be considered earned income of such 

18 child.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

21 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS