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


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                         18,244
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  51,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                   712
<INVENTORY>                                    10,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               87,818
<PP&E>                                         407,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 434,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          72,647
<BONDS>                                        185,677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    5,792
<COMMON>                                       4,239
<OTHER-SE>                                     73,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   434,993
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,469
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  219,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,608
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,973
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,635
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.28
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                         Exhibit 21
                           The Advest Group, Inc.
                                      
                            List of Subsidiaries

                                   Jurisdiction            Present
Name                            Where Incorporated        Ownership
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Advest, Inc.                       Delaware                    100%
  Advest Insurance Agency, Inc.    Massachusetts               100%
  Balanced Capital Services, Inc.  Connecticut                 100%
  Vercoe Insurance Agency, Inc.    Ohio                        100%

Advest Bank and Trust Company      Connecticut                 100%
  A.B. Realty Corp.                Connecticut                 100%

Advest Capital, Inc.               Connecticut                 100%

Advest Properties, Inc.            Delaware                    100%

Advest Transfer Services, Inc.     Delaware                    100%

Bank Street Management Company     Connecticut                 100%

Billings & Company, Inc.           Connecticut                 100%
  Billings Management Co.          Connecticut                 100%

Boston Security Counsellors, Inc.  Massachusetts               100%

Central Row Corp.                  Connecticut                 100%

The Hannah Consulting Group, Inc.  Connecticut                 100%

SRNY, Ltd.
 (formerly Shore & Reich, Ltd.)    Connecticut                 100%
  Coordinated Planning, Ltd.       New York                    100%



                                -102-
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 MERCURY AIR GROUP, INC CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION I, Kent Rosenthal, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on SEC Form 10-Q of Mercury Air Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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, nor 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 registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant 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. designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 d. disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal controls over
financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing similar 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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/ Kent RosenthalKent RosenthalChief Financial Officer May 27, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            1293
<SECURITIES>                                      3671
<RECEIVABLES>                                    15175
<ALLOWANCES>                                       736
<INVENTORY>                                       9104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 30471
<PP&E>                                            4231
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   33619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3369
<OTHER-SE>                                       12117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     33619
<SALES>                                          19330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 19330
<CGS>                                            14474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    466
<INCOME-TAX>                                       117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
Order filed January 28, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00958-CR

____________

JAIRO UMANZOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1349385

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 69, video 

of the defendant.
The clerk of the 228th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of State's Exhibit 69, video of the defendant, on or before 

February 06, 2015. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and 

keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's 

Exhibit 69, video of the defendant, to the clerk of the 228th District Court.

 

PER CURIAM
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 4

- 0208

_____________________________

L ORENZO B ROOKS , Appellant,

v.

R ICKY D. D IXON , Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County

. Melissa G. Olin , Judge

. August 28, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. Lorenzo Brooks seeks review of the trial court’s order denying in part and dismissing in part his petition for writ of habeas
corpus , in which he challenged being placed on close management status. As to the trial court’s dismissal of ground three in the habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we affirm without further comment. However, for purposes of the trial court’s denial of grounds one and two, we treat the appeal as a petition invoking our certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits. See Thomas v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs. , 89 So. 3d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the proceeding as an appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of certain mandamus claims for failure2 to exhaust administrative remedies but reviewing the trial court’s denial on the merits of the remaining claims under the “higher certiorari standard”); see also Owens v. Jones , 200 So. 3d 1289, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Williams v. Tucker , 87 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

A FFIRMED in part and D ENIED on the merits in part.

O STERHAUS , C.J.

, and L EWIS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Lorenzo Brooks, pro se

, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Charles T. Martin Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

                                  May 14, 2004

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q by Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period
ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Jack A. Hockema, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to such officer's knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
            78o(d)); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the date first above written.



                                               /s/ Jack A. Hockema
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Jack A. Hockema
                                               Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and will be retained by
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-58,141] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 17, 2005 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of IBM Corporation working on-site at Dana Corporation, 2001 Sanford Street in Muskegon, Michigan. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by a current certification (TA-W-57,957C) issued on October 24, 2005. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of October, 2005. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-22331 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
Case 1:06-cv-14948-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### CONNOLLY v. SHARPE

No. 512P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 606.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1982. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 November 1982.
#### PROPST CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 291PA82

(Filed 3 November 1982)

Highways and Cartways § 9— action on completed highway construction contract — trial by judge without jury

The Court of Appeals erred in remanding for trial by jury a case concerning a completed contract for the construction of a state highway, since under G.S. 136-29(c) such an action is to be tried by a judge without a jury.

On discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 56 N.C. App. 759, 290 S.E. 2d 387 (1982), reversing summary judgment for defendant entered by *Wood, J.,*at the 21 April 1981 Session of Superior Court, MONTGOMERY County.

*Kluttz, Hamlin, Reamer, Blankenship & Kluttz, by Clarence Kluttz and Malcolm B. Blankenship, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

*Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Blackwell M. Brog-den, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for defendant appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Appeals erred in remanding this case for trial by jury. Under N.C.G.S. 136-29(c), any controversy concerning a completed contract for the construction of a state highway is to be tried by a judge without a jury. Therefore, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is modified to the extent that the controversy is remanded for trial by a judge sitting as the finder of fact. Except as modified herein, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and adopted by this Court.

Modified and affirmed.
#### MAZZUCCO v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

No. 104 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 47.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 December 1976. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 December 1976.
Exhibit 10.12

M E M O R A N D U M
​
To:Joe Joffrion
​
From:George A. Mangiaracina
​
Date:October 7, 2020
​
Re:2020 Annual Salary and Bonus Target Summary
​
​
Base Salary:$360,000
​
Target Cash Bonus:$75,000
​
Target RSU Bonus
Award:Equivalent of $25,000 vesting over 3 years
Example:  $25,000 / $1.50 share price = 16,666 RSUs
​
Target Option Bonus
	Award:
	For every 1 RSU share awarded, 0.5 options will also be awarded with standard exercise price calculation


​
Example:  $25,000 / $1.50 share price = 16,666 RSUs
     16,666 RSUs / 2 = 8,333 options awarded vesting over 3 years
​
	Severance Terms:
	Change of Control: 3 months base salary and 6 months COBRA coverage.  At 2 years of service this shall be changed to 12 months base salary and 12 months COBRA coverage. Change of Control generally means an acquiring entity purchases more than 50% of the Common Stock of IMH and your position is eliminated within 12 months thereafter.


​
Termination without Cause: 3 months base salary and 6 months COBRA coverage.  At 2 years of service this shall be changed to 6-12 months base salary at the discretion of the company and matching period for COBRA coverage.  Cause generally means a material reason to terminate your employment, such as a material violation of company policies and procedures.
​
Nothing contained herein modifies the at-will status of your employment with the company.
​
Receipt Acknowledged:
​
​
	​


	​



	/s/ joe Joffrion
	Date: October 7, 2020
​

	​
	​




​
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         230,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               326,692
<PP&E>                                         484,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 838,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          553,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,232,005
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,965,385)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   838,974
<SALES>                                      5,349,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,349,978
<CGS>                                        1,781,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,781,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,562,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               143,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (137,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (137,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (137,412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### NORRIS C. VAN SANT, PROSECUTOR, v. C. J. ADAMS COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted May 3, 1932

Decided August 27, 1932.

Before Justices Parker, Campbell and Lloyd.

For the prosecutor, *Flwood F. Kirlcman.*

For the defendant, *Joseph II. Carr*and *Bernhard G. Luethy.*

*996Pee Cueiam.

This writ brings up a judgment of dispossession in a landlord, and tenant case.

Van Sant, as tenant, rented certain premises from defendants under a written lease for a year from February 1st, renewable yearly until terminated by thirty days’ notice, which was not required to be in writing. In February, 1932, the landlord demanded possession, claiming expiry of term, sued in the District Court and had a judgment, which is before us on this writ.

The only question is whether there is any evidence of a legal notice working a termination of the tenancy.

Carl Adams, a witness for defendant, testified that in September, 1931, he ivas talking with Van Sant about collecting the rent, and Van Sant said he could not pay over $6,000 for the coming year and to please take it up with the owners. Later that witness told Van Sant they would not take $6,000 and Van Sant made a vulgar reply indicating that was all he would pay. Adams: “You mean you don’t want the lease for another year?” Van Sant: “No, not unless I can get it for $6,000.” Adams: “Positively they will not take $6,000.” Later when Adams was collecting rent, Van Sant asked if he had a new tenant. Mrs. Biley, a clerk in the Adams office, testified that Van Sant came in the office January 13th and remarked as he made the last payment for the year, that it would be the last check from him.

We are not concerned with the weight of evidence. Was, then, the District Court justified in regarding the conversation in question taken with subsequent acts of prosecutor as testified to, as an adequate thirty days’ notice? Clearly* we think, it was justified.

The judgment will be affirmed.