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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000060150
<NAME> JOSEPH DRYER
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       55
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,071
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   652
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (581)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     71
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (25)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 46
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        46
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
#### TAEFI v. STEVENS

No. 54 PC.

No. 148 (Fall Term).

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 579.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 3 November 1981.
#### Joe Durham, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

In a murder trial, if the State prove by cross-examination of a witness for the defense, that “not a negro in the neighborhood was friendly to prisoner(who was himself a negro) and the evidence of guilt rests solely on the testimony of one witness, who was also unfriendly to prisoner, and the prisoner offer to prove the cause of his unpopularity with his own race, he should be permitted to do so.

Criminal law. Murder. Principal in the second degree. New trial. Before Judge Robinson. Greene Superior Court. September Term, 1871.

The plaintiff in error, a person of color, was indicted as principal in the second degree *to*the murder of Jeff Chennault. Upon the trial, Felix Gresham, a material witness for the plaintiff in error, upon cross-examination by the State, testified that “not a negro in the neighborhood was friendly to prisoner.” Plaintiff in error then proposed to prove the cause of this unfriendly feeling, and the Court excluded the evidence. The jury found plaintiff in error guilty of murder as principal in the second degree. Whereupon, plaintiff in error moved for a new trial upon several grounds, the first of which it is only necessary to an understanding of the decision of the Court, hereto set forth, to-wit:

1st. Because the Court erred in refusing to allow defendant's counsel to prove the cause of bad feeling between defendant and the deceased, previous to the difficulty, and also the cause of bad feeling between the defendant and the colored witnesses for the State, after it had been proven that this bad feeling existed. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiff in error excepted.

Edward L. Lewis, by brief, for plaintiff in error,

cited 31 Ga. R., 167; 28th, *Ibid.,*200; 1st Chitty’s Criminal Law, 258; 12 Ga. R., 500.

*517Flemming Jordan, Solicitor General, by brief, for the State.

Montgomery, Judge.

The only assignment of error we deem it necessary to notice in this case is the refusal of the Court to permit the prisoner, after the State had shown his unpopularity with his own race in the neighborhood, to prove the cause of the ill-feeling towards him. In this we think the Court erred, the more especially as the only witness who testified to the prisoner’s guilt was himself proven to be unfriendly to him. Had the jury known the cause of this unfriendly feeling, they would have been better able to estimate the weight of the testimony against the prisoner.

Let the judgment be reversed.
# C_2011180EN.01000901.xml

| 21.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/9

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/357/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply

2011/C 180/04

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of persons and entities that appear in Annex IIIA to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/357/CFSP (1), and in Annex IA to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| TEFS Coordination |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

TEFS Coordination

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 21.6.2011, p 25.

1

(2)  OJ L 161, 21.6.2011, p 1.

2

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cr-00002-RH-GRJ

QUINTON JONES,

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 38, Defendant’s notice of voluntary

dismissal of his pending motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On March 3,

2011, the undersigned advised Defendant that if he withdraws his motion, any

subsequently-filed motion may be barred by the one-year limitations period applicable

to § 2255 motions and/or by the restrictions on filing second or successive § 2255

motions. Doc. 39. The undersigned ordered Defendant to file a notice with the Court

on or before March 17, 2011, acknowledging that he understands these consequences.

As of this date, Defendant has failed to comply with that order. 

Notwithstanding Defendant’s failure to file a notice of acknowledgment, because

Defendant seeks to voluntarily dismiss his motion to vacate and has been advised of

the consequences of withdrawing the motion, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Page 2 of 2

the motion to vacate, Doc. 31, be DISMISSED.

IN CHAMBERS this 21 day of March 2011. 

st

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with

a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 4:10-cr-00002-RH -GRJ
#### STATE v. EVANS

No. 155P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 256.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 22 April 1982.
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                              ------------
                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
       SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Marc S. Hermelin, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted 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 results
          of operations of the Company.







Date:  March 25, 2008                       /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
       --------------                   ------------------------------
                                               Marc S. Hermelin
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10 Q for the period ended February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Luther,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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.




Date: April
      9, 2010
            
            /s/William
      E. LutherWilliam
      E. LutherChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.6


 


Description of
Securities


 


The following description
of the terms of our common stock and preferred stock is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to our Articles
of Incorporation, as amended (“Certificate of Incorporation”) and our Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), which are
exhibits to this Report on Form 10-K .


  


The Company is authorized
to issue up to 1,000,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value. The holders of our Common Stock are entitled to one vote
per share held and have the sole right and power to vote on all matters on which a vote of stockholders is taken. Voting rights
are non-cumulative. Common stockholders are entitled to receive dividends when, as, and if declared by the Board of Directors,
out of funds legally available therefore and to share pro rata in any distribution to stockholders. Upon liquidation, dissolution,
or the winding up of our Company, common stockholders are entitled to receive the net assets of our Company in proportion to the
respective number of shares held by them after payment of liabilities which may be outstanding. The holders of common stock
do not have any preemptive right to subscribe for or purchase any shares of any class of stock of the Company. The outstanding
shares of common stock will not be subject to further call or redemption and are fully paid and non-assessable. To the extent that
additional common shares are issued, the relative interest of existing stockholders will likely be diluted.


 


Our
Articles of Incorporation authorize the issuance by resolution of our Board of Directors of up to five million shares of “blank-check”
preferred stock in one or more series, the terms of which may be determined at the time of issuance as the Board of Directors may
determine, in its sole discretion, without further authorization by our stockholders. These terms could give the holders of the
preferred stock the right to vote as a series on particular matters, preferences ass to dividends and upon liquidation, conversion
rights, redemption rights and sinking fund provisions. The terms of any series of preferred may not be beneficial to common stock
holders, since they may adversely affect the voting power and diminish other rights of holders of our common stock and perpetuate
the board’s control over our company, and therefore could reduce the value of such common stock. Preferred stock may be issued
quickly with terms calculated to discourage, make more difficult, delay or prevent a change in control of our company or make removal
of management more difficult. In addition, specific rights granted to future holders of preferred stock could be used to restrict
our ability to merge with, or sell assets to, a third party. The ability of our board of directors to issue preferred stock could
make it more difficult, delay, discourage, prevent or make it more costly to acquire or effect a change-in-control, which in turn
could prevent our stockholders from recognizing a gain in the event that a favorable offer is extended and could materially and
negatively affect the market price of our common stock.
Exhibit






SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
INTERFACE, INC. NONQUALIFIED SAVINGS PLAN II
(as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009)


THIS AMENDMENT to the Interface, Inc. Nonqualified Savings Plan II (the “Plan”) is made by the Administrative Committee of the Plan (the “Administrative Committee”). 


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, Interface, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan for the benefit of its eligible key management and highly compensated employees; and


WHEREAS, Section 9.1 of the Plan provides that the Administrative Committee has the right to amend the Plan at any time; and


WHEREAS, due to current economic conditions, the Company desires to amend the Plan to cease matching contributions with respect to compensation and deferrals after May 1, 2020;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of May 1, 2020:


1.Section 3.3 is amended to read as follows:
3.3    Matching Contributions.
(a)    Amount.  The Administrative Committee shall credit to each Participant’s Account, for the Plan Year beginning January 1, 2020, a Matching Contribution equal to the difference between: 
(i)    50% multiplied by the lesser of (A) the sum of the maximum amount of deferrals that the Participant could have made to the Savings and Investment Plan with respect to compensation payable from January 1, 2020, through May 1, 2020, inclusive (the “2020 Match Period”), plus the Participant’s deferrals to the Plan for the 2020 Match Period, or (B) 6% of the Participant’s Compensation payable during the 2020 Match Period; and
(ii)    The amount of matching contributions that would have been made to the Participant’s account under the Savings and Investment Plan for the 2020 Match Period, assuming the Participant deferred the maximum amount permitted under the Savings and Investment Plan during the 2020 Match Period.
No further Matching Contributions will be made under the Plan following the 2020 Match Period.
(b)    Time of Crediting.  A Participant’s matching contributions for a Plan Year will be credited to his Account as of the earlier of (i) the date a Participant’s employment with the Controlling Company and all other members of the Controlled Group terminates during that Plan Year, or (ii) the first day of the immediately following Plan Year (or such other date or time as the Administrative Committee, in its sole discretion, determines from time-to-time).
2.Except as specified herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrative Committee has caused its duly authorized member to execute this Amendment on the date written below.


ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
/s/ David B. Foshee, V.P., Interface, Inc. 
March 30, 2020








1
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement Nos. 33-22990, 33-38210, 33-51588 and 33-61624 on Forms
S-3 and in Registration Statement Nos. 2-83273, 2-98984,
33-27288, 33-38209, and 33-86078 on Forms S-8 of Jackpot
Enterprises, Inc. of our report dated September 24, 1999,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jackpot
Enterprises, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
September 24, 1999
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LEE EDWARD JONES,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv51-RH/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 6). No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal (document 5) is

GRANTED. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED

without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on May 19, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
No. 1313, Misc.

#### Darnell *v.*Walker, Warden.

Supreme Court of Louisiana. Certiorari denied.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00696-CV

Robert DUDLEY,

Appellant

v.

Narzaya ORGIL and Tsolmondorj Tsetendelger,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-05793

Honorable Gloria Saldaña, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 22, 2011

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Their motion states they have 

reached an agreement on all matters in this dispute and they ask this court to dismiss the appeal. 

The joint motion is granted and this appeal is hereby dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

In accordance with the agreement, costs of this appeal are taxed against the party that incurred 

them. See id. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2047 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2047

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
   To provide for a 2-week extension of the Medicaid community mental 
     health services demonstration program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE MEDICAID COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
    Section 223(d)(3) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 
(42 U.S.C. 1396a note) is amended by striking ``June 30, 2019'' and 
inserting ``July 14, 2019''.
SEC. 2. MEDICAID IMPROVEMENT FUND.
    Section 1941(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396w-
1(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting 
``$1,000,000''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              28
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (235)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,375
<PP&E>                                           6,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,065)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,968
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           413
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,565)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,829
<SALES>                                          6,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,860
<CGS>                                            2,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (12)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (12)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (12)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03551-RWS     Document 3      Filed 07/03/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03551-RWS     Document 3      Filed 07/03/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. HUNTER

No. 99 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 534.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 15 April 1976.