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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,961
<SECURITIES>                                     6,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,481
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         237,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        160,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,010
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,244
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,819
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (884)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    812
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.08
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. BRIGGS

No. 106 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 351.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals'denied 12 July 1973. ' . i
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                            665680
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     48333
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  714013
<PP&E>                            31043318
<DEPRECIATION>                    30376924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1380407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             237544
<BONDS>                           0
<COMMON>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<OTHER-SE>                        1142863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1380407
<SALES>                           763517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  763517
<CGS>                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  373281
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   390236
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               390236
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      390236
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .00


</TABLE>
#### BORDEN, INC. v. BROWER

No. 7 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 249.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 6 March 1973.
Case 1:06-cv-14949-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14936-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
July 21, 1998




Mr. Lawrence L. Watts
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation
5847 San Felipe, Suite 2600
Houston, Texas 77057

Dear Larry:

     This letter reflects our agreement that the supplemental 
non-recurring 1998 annual incentive payment to be paid to you
under our existing agreement will be in the amount of $335,000. 
This amount will be paid promptly following the execution of this
letter and your consulting agreement. 

     Please acknowledge your acceptance of the foregoing and its
terms in the space provided below.




Very truly yours,

/s/ George T. Haymaker, Jr.

George T. Haymaker, Jr.
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer



Agreed and accepted:

/s/ Lawrence L. Watts


Lawrence L. Watts
July 21, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      12,667,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,069,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                   215,000
<INVENTORY>                                    457,852
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,354,770
<PP&E>                                       4,259,547
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,734,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,033,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,705,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       113,375
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,033,515
<SALES>                                     14,429,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,429,867
<CGS>                                        3,221,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,221,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,647,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (439,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (439,258)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JAMES S. THOMPSON,

Petitioner

v.

HONORABLE GERALD R. SOLOMON,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2020, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the “Notice of Extraordinary Application in Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus” is DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist 

from the caption.
Exhibit 99.1

                        Written Statement of the Trustee
                        --------------------------------

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Trustee of the Journal
Employees' Stock Trust (the "Trust"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Trust for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Trust.


/s/ Steven J. Smith
---------------------------
Steven J. Smith
May 6, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Journal Employees' Stock Trust and will be retained by the
Journal Employees' Stock Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Journal Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended June 16, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Steven J. Smith
------------------------------------------
Steven J. Smith
July 30, 2002
<PAGE>

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company
on Form 10-Q for the Three and Six Month Periods ended December 31, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as and the results
of the operations of the Company.

/s/ Joseph Czyzyk                           Dated: February 14, 2003
---------------------------------
Joseph Czyzyk

President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Robert Schlax                           Dated: February 14, 2003
---------------------------------
Robert Schlax
Vice President of Finance and
Principal Financial Officer


                                  Exhibit 99.2
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bakersfield, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-358 

Issued: November 3, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Steven E. Brown, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEE 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

Counsel for appellant filed a request for approval of attorney fees in the amount of nine 

hundred and fifty dollars ($950.00) By order dated April 8, 2014, the Board denied counsel’s 

request and allowed an additional 60 days for the submission of supplementary information to 

review the request under the Board’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9.1

In this appeal, the Board’s June 18, 2013 decision found that the case was not in posture 

for decision as to whether appellant’s lumbar condition was causally related to her employment 

as a mail clerk. The June 19, 2012 decision of the OWCP was set aside and the case remanded 

for further development of the medical evidence. 

On April 17, 2014 counsel responded to the Board’s April 8, 2014 order providing 

additional information for consideration of the fee request pursuant to section 501.9(e).2

 He 

noted that appellant did not contest the reasonableness of the fee. Regarding the usefulness of 

the representative’s services, he noted that evidence was submitted from appellant’s treating 

physician who supported causal relationship between her medical condition and her work duties. 

 1 See 5 U.S.C. § 8127(b); 20 C.F.R. § 501.9. 

2

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
2

While the appeal was not complex, the Board found that further development of the medical 

evidence was in order which was consistent with counsel’s argument on appeal. Counsel noted 

that the time spent on the appeal was documented and addressed the customary local charges for 

similar services. He specifically addressed the hourly rates charged by the staff of his law firm 

in this appeal. 

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and additional information submitted by counsel 

and finds that it satisfies the requirements of section 501.9(e) of the Board’s implementing 

federal regulations. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of nine 

hundred and fifty dollars ($950.00).3

Issued: November 3, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 3

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge, who participated in the preparation of the decision, was no longer a member 

of the Board after May 16, 2014.
Case 1:07-cv-03287-RJH Document 6 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Carlos Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered February 2, 2012, after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered February 2, 2012, affirmed. </p><p>The verdict, in which the jury rejected defendant's justification defense, was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. The testimony of the victim, as credited by the jury, disproved defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. </p><p>The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The record supports the court's findings that when defendant made a statement at the police precinct prior to his arrest, a reasonable innocent person in his position would not have thought that he was in custody (<i>see People v Yukl</i>, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], <i>cert denied</i> 400 US 851 [1970]; <i>see also Stansbury v California</i>, 511 US 318 [1994]). Defendant voluntarily went to the precinct at a detective's request and, although the detective told defendant that he "needed" to speak to him, the credited testimony established that the detective expressed a request and not a direction (<a href="../2007/2007_05324.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dillhunt</i>, 41 AD3d 216</a>, 217 [2007], <i>lv denied</i> 10 NY3d 764 [2008]<a href="../2012/2012_07585.htm" target="_blank"><i>; People v Miller</i>, 100 AD3d 466</a>, 466 [2012]<i>, lv denied </i>22 NY3d 957 [2013]). At the precinct, defendant was not handcuffed or restrained in any manner, the door to the interview room was left open and the police did not do anything to convey that defendant was not free to leave (<a href="../2013/2013_03391.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Andrango</i>, 106 AD3d 461</a>, 461 [2013], <i>lv denied</i> 21 NY3d 1040 [2013]).</p><p>This conclusion is not undermined by the detective's testimony that defendant would have been placed in custody had he sought to depart from the police station since these subjective intentions were never conveyed to him (<i>see People v Andrango</i>, 106 AD3d at 461). "A policeman's unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was  in custody' at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation" (<i>Berkemer v McCarty</i>, 468 US 420, 442 [1984]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: January 27, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
cdr-ex101a2_10.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1.a.2

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

2012 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 




 



EXHIBIT 10.1.a.2

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

2012 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

The Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. 2012 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:

1.    Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting such Section in its entirety and substituting the following:

4.1  Aggregate Limit.  Subject to adjustment under Section 4.3 below, the maximum number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan shall be 681,818 Shares.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, but subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15, no more than 75,757 Shares that can be delivered under the Plan shall be deliverable pursuant to the exercise of Incentive Stock Options.

2.    Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting such Section in its entirety and substituting the following:

4.2  Individual Limit.  Subject to adjustment under Section 4.3 below, the maximum number of Shares that may be (i) made the subject of Options and Stock Appreciation Rights, granted to any Eligible Individual with respect to any calendar year may not exceed 75,757 Shares and (ii) made the subject of Awards other than Options and Stock Appreciation Rights granted to any Eligible Individual with respect to any calendar year may not exceed 75,757; provided, however, that pursuant to obligations of the Company contained in the employment agreement with Bruce J. Schanzer, a maximum of 2,000,000 Restricted Shares may be granted to Mr. Schanzer in 2012.

3.    Except as so amended, the Plan in all other respects is hereby confirmed.

 

Approved by the Board of Directors on October 28, 2020.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5606 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5606

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania, as the ``James M. 
                `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES M. ``JIMMY'' STEWART POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``James M. `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James M. 
`Jimmy' Stewart Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30 
      (legislative day September 29), 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AS
OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          26,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,791
<INVENTORY>                                     34,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,093
<PP&E>                                          54,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,563
<BONDS>                                          4,059
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           433
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   278,977
<SALES>                                        216,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,651
<CGS>                                          113,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  330,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,527
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,204
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91


</TABLE>
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth inLocalRule

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 seeks
1Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973).

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

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

2

an order from the court a4 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 order1

and the complaint is therefore legally frivolous.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.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE DEMETRIO PINEDA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00 14 3

- C R

Appeal from the

1 09 th District Court

of Winkler C ounty, Texas

(TC# DC16

- 5584 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until February 3 , 202 2

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. M. Michele Rogers

, the Appell ant ’s attorney, prepare

the Appell ant ’s brief and forward t he same to this Court on or before February 3 , 202 2

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 th day o f January , 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox , and Alley , JJ.