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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,188,726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,037,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                   185,000
<INVENTORY>                                 20,407,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,575,310
<PP&E>                                      14,276,503
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,254,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,597,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,458,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       493,824
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,997,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,597,269
<SALES>                                     69,631,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,639,738
<CGS>                                       41,588,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,743,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             346,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,549,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,619,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,929,730
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,929,730
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERARDO LEAL-CANETE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71935

Agency No. A096-346-384

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010**

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Gerardo Leal-Canete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal

and denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

FILED

SEP 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71935

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a

continuance and we review de novo claims of due process violations in

immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Leal Canete’s request for

a continuance because he did not establish good cause for the continuance. See

Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir. 1988). Leal Canete’s due process claim

therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring

prejudice and error to prevail on a claim of due process).

The agency was not required to reach the issue of physical presence, as its

decision on hardship was dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal

on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Case 1:07-cv-03499-DC Document 6 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03499-DC Document 6 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03499-DC Document 6 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 3
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2052 

AN ACT 

To authorize the honorary promotion of Colonel Charles E. 

McGee to brigadier general in the United States Air Force. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2052 ES

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR HONORARY PROMOTION OF 

2 COLONEL CHARLES E. MCGEE TO BRIGADIER 

3 GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES AIR 

4 FORCE. 

5 The President is authorized to issue an appropriate 

6 honorary commission promoting to brigadier general in 

7 the Air Force Colonel Charles E. McGee, United States 

8 Air Force (retired), a distinguished Tuskegee Airman 

9 whose honorary promotion to that grade has the rec10 ommendation of the Secretary of the Air Force in accord11 ance with the provisions of section 1563 of title 10, United 

12 States Code. 

13 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON BENEFITS. 

14 No person is entitled to any bonus, gratuity, pay, or 

15 allowance by reason of section 1. 

Passed the Senate July 31, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2052 

AN ACT 

To authorize the honorary promotion of Colonel 

United States Air Force. Charles E. McGee to brigadier general in the
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC     Document 36      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH     Document 7-12      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH     Document 7-12      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH     Document 7-12      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH     Document 7-12      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH     Document 7-12      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 5 of 5
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 18 - 00276 - CR NO. 02 - 18 - 00277 - CR

JOSEPH RAUCH APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO S . F16

- 1106

- 16, F16

- 1 107

- 16

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Joseph Rauch attempts to appeal two 2017 trial court judgments

. Becaus e we have no jurisdiction over these appeals, we dismiss them.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 In trial court cause number F16

- 1106

- 16 , Appellant pled guilty to first

degree felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver

— a lesser

- included offense of his indicted offen se ( engaging in organized criminal activity ) , in exchange for a sentence of eight years’ confinement

. S ee Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.113(d) (West 2017) ; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12. 32 (West 2011) , § 71.02(a)(5), (b)(3) (West Supp. 2017). In trial court cause number F16

- 1107

- 16, Appellant pled guilty to money laundering in exchange for one year’ s confinement in the state jail division. S ee Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West Supp. 2017), § 34.02(a)

– (b) , (e)(1) (West 2016 )

. The trial court ordered the two sentences to run concurrently. The trial court convicted and sentenced Appellant in both cases on March 10, 2017 , and Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Accordingly, Appellant ’ s notice of appeal in each case was due by April 10 , 2017, but he did not file his notice of appeal in either case until June 11, 2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing absent a timely motion for new trial). His notices of appeal were
t herefore filed approximately fourteen months too late. See id. We informed Appellant by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over these appeals because his notices of appeal, which were due April 10 , 2017, were untimely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a), 26.3(b). We stated that these appeals would be subject to dismissal absent a response showing grounds for continuing them. We have received no response.3 A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to vest t his court with jurisdiction over an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 5 19, 52 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because Appellant filed his pro se notices of appeal too late, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and BIRDWELL, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex . R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 23, 2018
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1736 

To prohibit the transfer of operations and closure of Forest Service Job 

Corps Civilian Conservation Centers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

KAINE, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DAINES, and Ms. BALDWIN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To prohibit the transfer of operations and closure of Forest 

Service Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Job Corps Protection 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FOREST SERVICE JOB CORPS CIVILIAN CONSERVA7 TION CENTERS. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:02 Jun 10, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1736.IS S1736

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1736 IS

1 ulations), the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 

2 of Labor— 

3 (1) shall not transfer the function of any Forest 

4 Service Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center to 

5 the Department of Labor; and 

6 (2) shall ensure that each Forest Service Job 

7 Corps Civilian Conservation Center is wholly oper8 ated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

9 (b) CLOSURE OF CENTERS.—None of the funds ap10 propriated to the Department of Agriculture or the De11 partment of Labor for fiscal year 2019 or 2020 shall be 

12 used to close any Forest Service Job Corps Civilian Con13 servation Center. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40929 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALEJANDRINA GAMEZ

- FLORES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 1265

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandrina Gamez

Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gamez

- Flores h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 25, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40929 Document: 00514930581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2019No. 18

- 40929

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40929 Document: 00514930581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11138

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE VILLANUEVA-CARDENAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-386-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Villanueva-Cardenas appeals his eight-month prison sentence

following the revocation of the supervised release term imposed as part of his 

2015 sentence for illegal reentry. Villanueva-Cardenas argues that the district 

court proceedings violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) 

because he was held in custody for violating his supervised release yet was not 

promptly taken before a magistrate judge. As the parties agree, because 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11138 Document: 00514565073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2018
No. 17-11138

2

Villanueva-Cardenas failed to raise this issue in the district court, it is subject 

to plain error review. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 

2007). 

Villanueva-Cardenas has failed to show that it is clear or obvious that 

he was in custody for violating his supervised release during the 40 days in 

question. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). In any event, 

Villanueva-Cardenas has likewise failed to show that any alleged error, even 

if plain, affected his substantial rights. See id. The record shows that the 

district court reduced his consecutive prison sentence for his new illegal 

reentry offense to reflect credit for the 40 days at issue. The judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11138 Document: 00514565073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2018
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00028-CV

Abelardo ZAMORA and Janet Zamora, 

Individually and as Next Friends of Abelardo Zamora Jr., a Minor Child,

Appellants

v.

Jacob James DAVILA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 387082

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee, Jacob James Davila, recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellants, Abelardo Zamora and Janet Zamora.

SIGNED December 9, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAMSES LUIS LICANO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00230-CR

Appeal from the

County Court of Law Number Two

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20190C01809)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, the undersigned officer of Vision Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated March 18, 2005



By:

/s/ J. Daniel SizemoreJ. Daniel Sizemore,Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 12.2**  **12.2    Certification of Chief Financial Officers Pursuant to    Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.**  I, Luigi    Ferraris, certify that:          1.     I have reviewed this annual report on    Form 20-F/A    of Enel S.p.A;      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, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;      3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other    financial information included in this report, fairly present in    all material respects the financial condition, results of    operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the    periods presented in this report.      Date:  November 13, 2007 /s/  Luigi    Ferraris    Luigi Ferraris    Chief Financial Officer

 
I, Claudio    Machetti, certify that:           1.     I have reviewed this annual report on    Form 20-F/A    of Enel S.p.A;      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, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;      3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other    financial information included in this report, fairly present in    all material respects the financial condition, results of    operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the    periods presented in this report.      Date:  November 13, 2007 /s/  Claudio    Machetti    Claudio Machetti    Chief Financial Officer
ruth-ex102_8.htm



Exhibit 10.2

FORM OF ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Addendum”) is dated as of March 27, 2020, by and between Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. (the “Employer”), and [●] (the “[Executive]/[Employee]”), and is intended to modify the Terms of Employment/Letter of Understanding and Salary Continuation Agreement, dated as of [●], 20[●] (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between the Employer and the [Executive]/[Employee].  Any capitalized term not defined herein will have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Employment Agreement.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the business and operations of the Employer, the Employer and the [Executive]/[Employee] desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth below.

1.The Employment Agreement shall be amended to add the following sentence to the end of Section 4(a):

Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary, [Executive]/[Employee] hereby consents to the reduction of [Executive’s]/[Employee’s] annual base salary by an amount not to exceed [●]% of Employee’s existing annual base salary as a result of, or related to, Employer’s actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and agrees that any such reduction shall not violate the Agreement or constitute Good Reason for any purpose under the Agreement and shall not entitle [Executive]/[Employee] to any severance or other payment pursuant to the Agreement or otherwise.

Additionally, the [Executive]/[Employee] hereby acknowledges and agrees that Good Reason under the Employment Agreement has not occurred prior to or as a result of this Addendum.  Except as expressly hereby amended, the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.  To the extent a conflict arises between the terms of the Employment Agreement and this Addendum, the terms of this Addendum will prevail.

 

[EXECUTIVE]/[EMPLOYEE]

By:
Name: [●]

RUTH’S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.

By:
Name:  
Title:
EXHIBIT 31.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lincoln International
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being
     prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                                              /s/ KENNETH S. BERRYMAN
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Name:  Kenneth S. Berryman
                                              Title: Treasurer
                                              Date:  July 14, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 192 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 56777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4922]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special 
Emphasis Panel, September 28, 2007, 11:30 a.m. to September 28, 2007, 
1:30 p.m. National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the Federal Register on 
August 28, 2007, 72 FR 49287.
    The meeting will be held October 19, 2007. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: September 28, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4922 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M