alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wayne Thomas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMIRNOFF DISTILLERY; ATF, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-6263.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 20, 2005.

Wayne Thomas Johnson, Smithfield, NC, pro se.

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Wayne Thomas Johnson, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which sought to hold Defendants Smirnoff Distillery and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms liable for Mr. Johnson’s various alcohol related problems based upon a failure to warn theory (in the guise of constitutional claims). Performing its screening function pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the district court, upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and concluded that the dismissal should count as a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). For substantially the reasons given by the magistrate judge, we affirm as Mr. Johnson has not addressed any of the defects identified below. Thus, the district court’s dismissal counts as a strike, as will this dismissal. *Jennings v. Natrona County Det. Ctr. Med. Facility,*175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED. Mr. Johnson’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and he is responsible for immediate payment of any unpaid filing fee.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded

Supers

eded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HANOVER
DIRECT, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY, EXCEPT FOR GROSS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THE
ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS, BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           5,173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,030)
<INVENTORY>                                     67,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,031
<PP&E>                                          71,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,523)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,538
<BONDS>                                         43,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,748
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,893
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,212)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,827
<SALES>                                        700,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               700,314
<CGS>                                          479,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  794,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (102,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (103,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (105,029)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.93)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
The X-Change Corporation
File No. 002-41703
Form 10-Q
Quarter ended September 30, 2009

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The X-Change Corporation (Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report),  I, Haviland Wright,  Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,  adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated: April 20, 2010                    By: /s/ Haviland Wright
       --------------                        -----------------------------------
                                                                 Haviland Wright
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to The  X-Change  Corporation  and will be  retained  by The  X-Change
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 10.29**

North Atlantic Value LLP A/C B 

Ryder Court, 14 Ryder Street, Ground Floor 

London, SW1Y 6QB 

United Kingdom 

 

To: Telos Corporation 

Attn: Ms. Therese K. Hathaway 

Corporate Secretary 

19886 Ashburn Road 

Ashburn, VA 20147

**Series A-1 and Series A-2 Redeemable Preferred Stock**

Dear Ms. Hathaway: 

It has been brought to our attention that Cudd & Co., the holderof 61.605 shares of Series A-1 Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series A-1 Shares”) of Telos Corporation (the “Corporation”) and 86.247 shares of Series A-2 Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series A-2 Shares” and,together with the Series A-1 Shares, the “Cudd Shares”) of the Corporation has offered to sell the Cudd Shares to the Corporation for a total purchase price of $430,000, such purchase price to include all of the Cudd Shares plus alldividends accrued on the Cudd Shares, the latter at a discount of 17.5%. 

We herewith waive any right that we may have, in connection with therepurchase by the Corporation of the Cudd Shares, to have (i) any or all of the outstanding shares of Series A-1 Redeemable Preferred Stock or any or all of the outstanding shares of Series A-2 Redeemable Preferred Stock held by North AtlanticValue LLP A/C B (together, the “North Atlantic Value Shares”) purchased or redeemed pro-rata pursuant to the charter of the Corporation, including without limitation Section 2(d) and Section 4(a) of each of the terms andconditions of the Series A-1 Redeemable Preferred Stock and the Series A-2 Redeemable Preferred Stock (together, the “Terms”) and (ii) any or all of the dividends accrued on the North Atlantic Value Shares declared, paid or set asidefor payment pro rata pursuant to the charter of the Corporation, including without limitation Section 2(b) and Section 2(c) of each of the Terms, as a result of the payment of the dividends accrued on the Cudd Shares. We further herewithconsent to the repurchase by the Corporation of the Cudd Shares. We understand that the North Atlantic Value Shares will remain outstanding following the repurchase by the Corporation of the Cudd Shares and that such repurchase will not affectdividends accrued on the North Atlantic Value Shares as of the date hereof and dividends will continue to accrue on the North Atlantic Value Shares in accordance with the Terms. 

Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT ON CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION 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>                             OCT-31-2000<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           86,600
<SECURITIES>                                    105,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,375,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (11,200)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                           13,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,348,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                       1,806,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      135,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,348,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 92,500
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    25,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 13,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               26,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  23,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (8,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<FN>
<F1>  THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>






</TABLE>
#### Jose Ramirez HERNANDEZ; Luis Josefina Ramos, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 04-70220.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 4, 2005.

Michael S. Cabrera, Law Offices of Michael S. Cabrera, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., John S. Hogan, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Ramirez Hernandez and his wife, Luis Josefina Ramos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Petitioners’ sole contention on appeal is that they received ineffective assistance of counsel. We lack jurisdiction over the petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they did not exhaust their administrative remedies by first raising it to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that exhaustion is jurisdictional); *Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the BIA).

*159PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### NASCO EQUIPMENT CO. v. MASON

No. 133 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 185.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 1 June 1976.
|Exhibit 12.2                           
|---------------------------------------
|
|
|                                       
|
|                                       
|(thousands)                            
|Income from continuing operations      
|Add                                    
|Equity investment (income) loss        
|Minority interests in subsidiaries     
|                                       
|Income subtotal                        
|                                       
|Add                                    
|Taxes on income                        
|Kansas City earnings tax               
|                                       
|Total taxes on income                  
|                                       
|Interest on value of leased property   
|Interest on long-term debt             
|Interest on short-term debt            
|Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred       
|Securities                             
|Other interest expense and amortization
|                                       
|Total fixed charges                    
|                                       
|Earnings before taxes on               
|income and fixed charges               
|                                       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges     
|
**EXHIBIT 21**
**SUBSIDIARIES OF INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED**
     Listed below are all the subsidiaries of Inter-Tel, Incorporated, as well as the jurisdictionunder the laws of which each was organized, and the percentage of the outstanding voting stock ofeach owned by Inter-Tel, Incorporated as of December 31, 2004.              **Percentage**  **State or**     **of Voting**  **Jurisdiction**  **Name**  **Stock Owned**  **of Organization**  Inter-Tel Integrated Systems, Inc.  100%  Arizona  Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.  100%  Arizona  Inter-Tel Leasing, Inc.  100%  Arizona  Inter-Tel Software and Services, Inc.  100%  Arizona  Inter-Tel Midwest, Inc.  100%  Delaware  Inter-Tel Incorporated-New Jersey  100%  Delaware  Inter-Tel NetSolutions, Inc.  100%  Texas  Inter-Tel DataCom, Inc.  100%  California  Southwest Telephone Systems, Inc.  100%  New Mexico  American Telcom Corp. of Georgia, Inc.  100%  Georgia  Access West, Inc.  100%  Delaware  Inter-Tel Europe, Limited  100%  United Kingdom  Swan Solutions Limited  100%  United Kingdom  Callview Limited  100%  United Kingdom  Inter-Tel Lake Limited  100%  Ireland  Inter-Tel Japan, Inc.  100%  Japan  Tri-Com Communications, Inc.  100%  North Carolina  Florida Telephone Systems, Inc.  100%  Florida  NTL Corporation dba ComNet of Ohio  100%  Ohio  Integrated Telecom Services Corporation  100%  Kentucky  Telephone Corporation of America, Inc. (Telcoa)  100%  Maryland  TDI Services Corporation, Technology Dynamics for the 21st Century  100%  Virginia  Inter-Tel Business Information Systems, Inc.  100%  Arizona
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June 30,
1997 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            5863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    74885
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3298
<INVENTORY>                                     135921
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                223521
<PP&E>                                          280402
<DEPRECIATION>                                  173050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  361007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            60425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69674
<OTHER-SE>                                      189754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    361007
<SALES>                                         208492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                208492
<CGS>                                           133369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   133369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   873
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  16655
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10576
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10576
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14950-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14916-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BRAUN

No. 108 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 101.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 December 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 21 December 1976.
#### IN RE CALHOUN

No. 363 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 472

Petition by caveator for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
#### Michael O. LUCAS, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 04-3436.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 9, 2005.

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*306PER CURIAM.

Michael 0. Lucas (“Lucas”) appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“board”) finding Lucas unsuitable for federal employment. *Lucas v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*No. SF0731030481-I-1, 96 M.S.P.R. 646 (M.S.P.B. Aug.9, 2004). We *affirm.*

We must affirm the final decision of the board unless we conclude that it is: “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; (2) obtained without procedure required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000). In a suitability case, an applicant may be denied federal employment only when it will “protect the integrity or promote the efficiency of the service.” 5 C.F.R. § 731.201 (2004). In determining whether an agency action will protect the integrity or promote the efficiency of the service, the agency may consider a number of factors, such as “[m]isconduct or negligence in employment,” “[cjriminal or dishonest conduct,” and “[m]aterial, intentional false statement[s].” *Id.*§ 731.202(b)(l-3).

The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) presented evidence establishing several charges against Lucas. These charges include: (1) misconduct or negligence in past employment as evidenced by negative evaluations and interviews with supervisors; (2) criminal or dishonest conduct as evidenced by the failure to pay $79,563.03 in court ordered child support; and, (3) a 1995 plea of no contest to the criminal offense of carrying loaded, concealed handguns. OPM also proved that Lucas made material and false statements by failing to disclose the preceding conduct and legal problems in response to questions on his application for federal employment. Lucas does not contest the occurrence of the events, only their significance to his suitability for employment. Because the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and the severity of the charges is facially evident, the denial of federal employment was proper.