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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Hooper Holmes, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March
31, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for
the period ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      18,210,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,158,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,097,282
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,271,774
<PP&E>                                      20,807,153
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,611,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,005,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,729,487
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       559,582
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,244,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,005,518
<SALES>                                     46,111,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,111,306
<CGS>                                       31,613,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,613,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,578,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               120,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,010,061
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,821,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,189,061
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,189,061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.13

                   SCHEDULE OF MANAGEMENT STABILITY AGREEMENTS


EMPLOYEE                                                       DATE OF AGREEMENT
--------                                                       -----------------

Keith D. Booke                                                    August 1, 1997
S. Eugene Edwards                                              February 25, 1999
John D. Gibbons                                                   August 1, 1997
John F. Hohnholt                                               February 25, 1999
Gregory C. King                                                   August 1, 1997
Order entered November 9, 2012

In The

No. 05-12-00263-CV

JMJ ACQUISTIOINS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant

V.

TERRY L. PETERSON AND TEXAS WORKFORCE COMISSION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-02746-D

ORDER

The Court has before it appellee’s October 29, 2012 motion to dismiss for failure to

comply. The Court DENIES the motion.

MOLLY

JUSTICE
(January 17, 1910.)

#### SAM HAAS et al., Appellants, v. A. R. TETERS, Respondent.

[106 Pac. 305.]

'Appeal — Motion to Dismiss — Undertaking on Appeal.

1. Under the provisions of see. 4808, Rev. Codes, an appeal is taken by filing with the clerk of the court in which the judgment or OTder appealed from is entered a notice stating the appeal from the same or some specific part thereof, and serving a similar notice on the adverse party, or his attorney, but the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose, unless within five days after service of the notice of appeal an undertaking is filed or a deposit of money is made with the clerk as provided by law, or the undertaking waived by the adverse party in writing.

2. Where the notice of appeal is served on the 12th day of October, 1909, and the undertaking on appeal was not filed until the 22d day of October, 1909, the appeal will be dismissed on motion.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from tbe District Court of tbe Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed L. Bryan, Judge.

Respondent moved to dismiss tbe appeal on tbe ground, among other things, that the undertaking on appeal was not filed within five days after the notice of appeal was served as provided by sec. 4808, Rev. Codes.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.

J. A. Elston, and Griffiths *&*Griffiths, for Appellants,

cite no authorities on point decided.

George W. Lamson, for Respondent.

Sec. 4808, Rev. Codes, provides that an appeal is ineffectual for any purpose unless within five days after service of notice of appeal an undertaking be filed or a deposit of money be made with the clerk or the undertaking waived by the adverse party in writing. The statute has not been complied with and the appeal should be dismissed. *(Hatiabaugh v.*
      *551
      *Vollmer, 5*Ida. 23, 46 Pac. 831; *Cole v. Fox,*13 Ida. 123, 88 Pac. 561; *Brown v. Hanley,*3 Ida. 219, 28 Pac. 425.)

SULLIVAN, C. J.

— Respondent moves to dismiss tbe appeal on tbe ground, among other things, that the undertaking was not filed within five days after the notice of appeal was served on the attorney for the adverse party, as provided by sec. 4808, Rev. Codes.

It appears from the record that the notice of appeal was served on the 12th day of'October, 1909, and the undertaking was not filed with the clerk of the proper court until the the 22d day of October, 1909, making ten days between the service of the notice of appeal and the filing of the undertaking. Under the provisions of said section of the statute, the undertaking must be filed within five days after the notice of appeal is served upon the adverse party or his attorney, or the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose. As the undertaking was not filed until ten days after the notice of appeal was served, the motion must be granted, and it is so ordered. *(Cole v. Fox,*13 Ida. 123, 88 Pac. 561; *West v. Dygert,*13 Ida. 641, 92 Pac. 753; *Village of Hailey v. Riley,*13 Ida. 749, 92 Pac. 756.)

Costs are awarded to respondent.

Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Jasmine Gregory, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K/A of Premier Holding Corp.;



(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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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;



(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 change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent 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.



|Dated:  July 1, 2011

/s/ Jasmine Gregory | 
|----------------------------------------- | 
|Jasmine Gregory                          
|Chief Financial Officer  and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Mar-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                      1773073
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               3219320
<ALLOWANCES>                                  53699
<INVENTORY>                                 5243968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           11013126
<PP&E>                                      9419224
<DEPRECIATION>                              5027273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             15459341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1789920
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                    2782439
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  9315083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               15459341
<SALES>                                     4743167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4796520
<CGS>                                       3317127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3317127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             292323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            40010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              282922
<INCOME-TAX>                                  80756
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          202166
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 202166
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .04


</TABLE>
H. R. 6059 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 51 Willow 

Street in Lynn, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Thomas P. Costin, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. THOMAS P. COSTIN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 51 Willow Street in Lynn, Massachusetts, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Thomas P. Costin, Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Thomas P. Costin, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Rel: June 7, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2024-0117

Johnny Mayo and Sabrino Mayo v. Merical Realty, LLC (Appeal from 

Madison Circuit Court: CV-23-901129).

SELLERS, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P.

Parker, C.J., and Wise, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         212,188
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,000,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (40,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,330,834
<PP&E>                                         758,341
<DEPRECIATION>                               (497,423)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,768,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,888,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,987
<OTHER-SE>                                   (126,121)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,768,220
<SALES>                                      4,512,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,512,274
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,298,374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            150,484
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,484
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
NO. 07-08 -009 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B APR IL 28 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ ANDY DEW AYNE POSEY, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; NO . 53, 792- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ON A BA TEMENT A ND R EMA ND A p p e l l a n t , A n d y

D e W ay ne Pose y , a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n fo r p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont rolled sub stan ce in a drug f ree zone, en h a n c e d , a n d sente nce o f 40 years inc ar cerati on i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Depa rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ce. O n Apr il 11, 2008, the c ler k’ s record w as filed i n thi s c ause. The cl er k’ s record does not cont ain a certif ication bythe trial court o f app ellant ’s ri g ht of appea l under

Tex as Rul e of Appel lan t Procedu re 25.2(d)
. Rul e 25 re q uires the t ri al2

cour t t o ent er

su ch a c e rt if ica ti on “ each ti me i t ent ers a j udg ment of g uil t or othe r appeal abl e order .” Tex . R . Ap p. P . 25. 2( a) (2 ). Con seq uent l y , w e a b a t e t h i s a p p e a l a n d r e ma n d t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rtfor further proceed ing s. On re mand, the tr ial co urt s hal l uti li z e w hatev er means nec ess ar

y to sec ur e a C erti ficat ion of Defendant ’s R ig ht of Appe al in compl ian ce w it h Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e P rocedure 25. 2( d) , reg ardin g appel lan t’ s a ppeal of the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment. Onc e ex ecut ed, t he c erti ficat ion sh all be i ncl uded in a s uppl emental cl er k’ s record and filed w it h thi s C our

t on or before Ma y

28, 2008. It is so ordered.

Per C ur iam

Do not p ubl is h.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or (515) 564-6638.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Tuesday, June 22, 2010, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or (515) 564-6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

*The agenda will include various IRS issues*.                

                        Dated:                         *May 3, 2010.*

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2010-10734 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ-CERDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-72-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Martinez-Cerda appeals the 41-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that the 

district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under the crime of 

violence provision of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior 

Texas felony conviction of aggravated assault. We review this determination 

 

* 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

September 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11309 Document: 00514162087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2017
No. 16-11309

2

de novo. See United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 

2005).

Martinez-Cerda argues that Texas aggravated assault is broader than 

generic aggravated assault and, furthermore, does not require the use or 

threatened use of force for purposes of § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii). He acknowledges 

this court’s holding in United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 198 (5th 

Cir. 2007), but argues that Guillen-Alvarez and United States v. MungiaPortillo, 484 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2007), were wrongly decided and have been 

called into question by the reasoning of other circuit courts. However, one 

panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another panel absent an 

intervening change in the law, for instance through a superseding decision of 

the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc. See United States v. Setser, 

607 F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover, this court has recently reaffirmed 

the holding in Guillen-Alvarez. United States v. Shepherd, 848 F.3d 425, 

427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). It is unnecessary to consider whether Martinez-Cerda’s 

prior conviction involved the use of force.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11309 Document: 00514162087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2017
(May 27, 1910.)

#### B. L. STEEVES, Appellant, v. BANK OF WEISER, Respondent.

[109 Pac. 260.]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, for the County of WasMngton. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action to recover from a stockholder taxes paid by the bank subsequent to the sale of such stock by the stockholder. Judgment for the plaintiff and defendant appealed.

*Reversed.*

Ed. R. Coulter, for Appellant,

citing same authorities given in *Shainwdld v. Bank, ante,*p. 290, 109 Pac. 257.

Frank Harris, for Respondent.

Appellant contends that it was the duty of the respondent bank to pay the tax out of any surplus funds or undivided *300profits on hand, as the current expenses of banks are usually paid. We cannot admit this proposition, for two reasons: First, the appellant having sold his stock, as alleged in the stricken answer, owned no part of these funds from which he urges the tax should have been paid; and second, such a method would be inequitable as between the several shareholders of the bank, as some of them may have established credits and offsets against their assessment by reason of indebtedness owing by them, as provided by sec. 1683, Rev. Codes. *(First Nat. Bmk of Weiser v. Washington Go.,*17 Ida. 306, 105 Pac. 1053.)

AILSHIE, J.

This case was submitted at the same time and in conjunction with the case of *Shainwald v. First National Bank, ante,*p. 290, 109 Pac. 257, just decided; and it wa& understood and agreed that the decision in this case should follow the decision in that case. The decision in the Shainwald ease is decisive of all the questions raised in this ease, and upon the authority of that case the judgment in the present case will be *reversed*and the cause is hereby remanded. Costs awarded in favor of appellant.

Sullivan, C. J., concurs.