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
Jaclyn, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2000 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             874
<SECURITIES>                                     1,622
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                      7,774
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,465
<PP&E>                                           1,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,042
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,369
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,859
<SALES>                                         50,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,177
<CGS>                                           37,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    336
<INCOME-TAX>                                       121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                215
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       215
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


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

No. 124 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 729.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 June 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 June 1976.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. R. J. MOOSE, Alias JACK MOOSE.

(Filed 13 April, 1966.)

Rape §§ 17, 18—

The intent constituting an essential element of the crime of assault on a female with intent to commit rape is the intent of the male to satisfy his passion on the person of the woman at all events, against her will and notwithstanding any resistance she may make, and a charge that *98such intent is the intent of the male to satisfy his passion on the person of prosecutrix without her consent and against her will, is insufficient.

Mooke, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,*October 1965 Criminal Session of Iredell.

*Attorney General T. Wade Bruton, Assistant Attorneys General George A. Goodwyn and Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.*

*L. Hugh West, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted for, and convicted of, an assault with intent to commit rape. He appeals from a prison sentence. Evidence for the State tended to show: Defendant, who had offered to take prosecutrix home from work after midnight on September 18, 1965, took her “down in a big old bottom,” where he attempted to rape her; she escaped from the car. He pursued her, but she successfully eluded him. Defendant’s version: He is a married man with “eleven children at home and one to come.” He “was a minister for 18 years of honest to goodness preaching,” but “just let another woman or two get in his way.” The first time he saw prosecutrix, he concluded that she was a “push over.” On the night in question they had an assignation, but when she resisted his advances he offered to take her home. Notwithstanding, she left his car and walked home, while he “escorted” her by driving along beside her.

Defendant assigns as error the following portion of his Honor’s charge:

> “Now, members of the jury, an assault can be a threat to do harm, one does not have to even lay his or her hands upon another party to be guilty of an assault, but by the laying on or touching with the hand or accompanied by a threat, that becomes an assault and battery. Then, as I have stated, if a person lays his hand upon a woman or threatens a woman, with the intent at that time to satisfy his passion on her person, without her consent and against her will, and making threats, if that is not accomplished, that is an assault with intent to commit rape.”

This assignment of error must be sustained. To convict one of the crime of an assault with intent to commit rape, the State must prove (1) an assault by a male upon a female (2) with the felonious intent to commit rape. "(T)he felonious intent is the intent to gratify his passion on the person of the woman *at all events against her will*
      *99
      *and notwithstanding any resistance she may make.” State v. Overcash,*226 N.C. 632, 634, 39 S.E. 2d 810, 811. (Italics ours.)

The court thereafter correctly defined the offense, but we may not assume that the jurors accepted the correct statement of the law as their guide.

The error in the charge entitles the defendant to a

New trial.

Moore, J., not sitting.
#### American Insurance Company *vs.*Frederick Schroeder.

Feb. 24, 1875.

Dismissal for want of Return. — This case dismissed, for want of a return, the place of which cannot be supplied by a stipulation, as attempted in this instance.

*D. B. Searle,*for plaintiff.

*Oscar Taylor,*for defendant.

Berry, J.

The only document on file in this court in this case, is a copy of a stipulation, the original of which appears to have been signed by the attorneys for the parties and to have been filed with the clerk of the court below, by whom the copy is certified to be “a full and correct transcript ’ ’ of the original stipulation. The stipulation purports to contain an account of proceedings in the case in a justice’s court and in the district court, in which latter it states that it was ‘£ decided ’ ’ that the plaintiff could not recover, and further proceeds to state that £ £ the plaintiff appeals from the said decision of the district court to the supreme court.” The stipulation contains nothing further important to be referred to at this time. No copies of notice of appeal have been furnished us, as required by § 7, ch. 86, Gen. Stat.

We cannot, upon the above state of facts, entertain this case, for several reasons, one of the most obvious of which is that no “return” has been made, as prescribed in § 4, ch. 86, Gen. Stat. In the absence of such return, there is not only no authentic evidence of any proceedings below, but, in this instance, no authentic evidence (even *prima facie)*of the pendency of any action, or of the removal of any action by appeal to this court. There is no warrant, and for manifest reasons there should be none, for supplying the place of this return by a stipulation. *Rathbun*v. *Moody,*4 Minn. 364.

Case dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Auden MONTOYA-CRUZ, also known as Eddie White, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10051.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Auden Montoya-Cruz raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### KEELS v. TURNER

No. 114 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 213.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1999 FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN INTERSTATE ENERGY  CORPORATION'S FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFRENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000352541
<NAME>                        INTERSTATE ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,069,213
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    1,202,097
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         362,599
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       159,066
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 278,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,071,122
<COMMON>                                       779
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      913,728
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            777,716 <F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,692,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          24,431
<PREFERRED>                                    89,102
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,545,251
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             50,027
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      56,975
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 64,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  54,084
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    11,499
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               12,146
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,471,384
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  5,071,122
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      546,855
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           24,872  <F2>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     453,868
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     453,868
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        92,987
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             8,705
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 101,692
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       33,400
<NET-INCOME>                                   43,420
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    1,676
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  41,744
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       38,834
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      90,353
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         170,152
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.54
        
<FN>
<F1>  Includes $237,434 of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.
<F2>  Income tax expense is not included in Operating Expense in the 
      Consolidated Statements of Income.
</FN>

</TABLE>
amendmenttodycomindustri






AMENDMENT TO THE  DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC. 2012 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED  AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF NOVEMBER 21, 2017 This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Dycom Industries, Inc. 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as Amended and  Restated Effective as of November 21, 2017 (the “Plan”), is made effective as of the 21st day of May, 2019, by Dycom  Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”).  1. Amendment to Section 5(a) of the Plan. The first sentence of Section 5(a) of the Plan is deleted and replaced with the following: (a) Plan Limit. Subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 13(b) of the Plan, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be awarded for all purposes under the Plan shall be 4,415,000 shares (the “Plan Limit”). 2. Continued Effect. Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Exhibit 10.5*
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                                  FORM 10-Q/A

(Mark One)

[X] Quarterly report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 1997


[ ] Transition report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934
For the Transition period from                 to

Commission File No. 1-7134
                    ------  
                             MERCURY AIR GROUP, INC.

             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 
            New York                                11-1800515
            --------                                ----------
(State or other jurisdiction of                   (I.R.S. Employer
 incorporation or organization)                Identification Number)


5456 McConnell Avenue, Los Angeles, CA                 90066
--------------------------------------                 -----
(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip Code)


                                 (310) 827-2737
                                 --------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

         Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                                    YES   X   No
                                        -----   -----

         Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Number of Shares Outstanding
           Title                              As of May 1, 1997
           -----                        ----------------------------
<S>                                     <C>
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value                        7,509,651
</TABLE>

<PAGE>   2
                                   SIGNATURES


         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.





                                           Mercury Air Group, Inc.
                                           Registrant




                                           -----------------------------
                                           Seymour Kahn
                                           Chairman and Chief
                                           Executive Officer





                                           -----------------------------
                                           Randy Ajer
                                           Secretary/Treasurer
                                           Chief Accounting Officer



Date: May 14, 1997





                                       13
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-Q FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,034
<INVENTORY>                                      2,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,017
<PP&E>                                         101,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,308
<BONDS>                                         63,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,503
<SALES>                                        185,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,108
<CGS>                                          162,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,562
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,459
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    979
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19


</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 09 6 . LORA BROOKS v . CHRI STI NA BRI SLI N.

Lo ra Bro o k s f/ k/ a Lo ra Bri s l i n fi l ed a p et i t io n ag ai ns t Ch ri s t i n a Bri s l i n s eek i n g

a ch an ge i n ch il d cu s to d y

. T h e t ri al co u rt en t ered ju d g m en t i n f a v o r o f Bri s l i n

, an d

Bro ok s fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed th e m o ti o n i n p a rt an d

d en ied i t i n p art , an d Bro o k s fi led t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal

.

Un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 1 ), “ [ a ]l l j u d g m en t s o r o rd ers i n ch i l d cu s t o dy

cas es award i n g

, refu s i ng t o ch an g e, o r m o d i fy i n g ch i l d cu s t o dy ” a r e d i rect l y

ap p eal ab l e. A p art y s eek in g t o ch al l en g e an o rd er i n a ch i l d cu s t o d y cas e, t herefo re,

m ay fi le a d i rect ap p eal

. See Co h en v. Co h en , 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p . 7 , 8 (1 ) (6 8 4 SE2 d 9 4 )

(2 0 0 9); Ta

yl o r v. Cu r l

, 2 98 G a. Ap p

. 4 5 (6 7 9 SE2 d 8 0 ) (2 00 9 )

. We w i l l g ran t an

o t h erwi s e t i m el y d i s cret i o n a r y a p pl i cat i o n i f t he lo wer co u rt ’ s o rd er is s u b ject to

d i rect ap p eal

. See O C GA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). A cco rd i n g l y

, t h i s ap pl i cat io n i s h ereb y

GRANTED. Bro o k s s h al l h av e t en d ay s fro m th e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi le a no t i ce o f

ap p eal wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt

. If, h o wev er, he h as al read y fi l ed a ti m el y n o ti ce o f ap p eal

,

s h e n eed n o t fi l e a s eco n d no t i ce. Th e cl erk o f th e t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e

a co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co urt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/09/2015 November 09, 2015
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600104

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JAIIQUAVIOUS R. THOMAS

Hospitalman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Robert J. Crow, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Ryan C. Mattina, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 9 August 2016

_________________________

Before PALMER, MARKS, and STINSON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### MATTHEW A. CUTLEY, PROSECUTOR, v. NEW JERSEY STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 10, 1932

Decided August 18, 1932.

Before Justices Paetcee, Campbell and Lloyd.

For the prosecutor, *Eric H. Jente.*

For the respondent, *William A.*Stevens, attorney-general, *Walter H. Bacon*and *George T. Viclcers.*

Pee Curiam.

We think the writ in this case should be dismissed for both legal and factual reasons.

In the first place the writ is improperly directed to the highway commission and should have been directed to the civil service commission. This would be sufficient to require its dismissal.

Prosecutor, prior to April 8th, 1930, was employed as supervisor of maintenance by the state highway commission. He is a veteran of the World War and holds an'honorable discharge and claims under *Pamph. L.*1907, *ch.*14, the right to continue to enjoy the benefit of such position unless properly discharged after hearing upon written charges.

He was discharged by the highway commission and then appealed from its finding to the civil service commission which latter body seems to have approved of the dismissal on October 15th, 1930. The return of the present writ does not show any judgment of the civil service commission. This situation is created, undoubtedly, because the writ is not directed to that body but to the highway commission. The *992fact that such a judgment was reached by the civil service commission upon the appeal to it by the prosecutor is shown by the latter’s testimony taken under the present writ.

While, as we have already said, the present writ, for the reasons before given, might, and in fact should be, dismissed, yet turning to the merits we find that prosecutor complains that he was not properly dismissed by the highway commission through a hearing upon written charges and that, upon his appeal from such dismissal to the civil service commission, such appeal was interrupted by an adjournment, without date, and the latter body proceeded to judgment against him without proper notice.

The facts as shown by the record return, and depositions taken, do not substantiate either of these contentions but, on the contrary, show such assertions to be utterly without foundation.

The proceedings under review are affirmed, and the writ dismissed, with costs.