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

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CERULEAN COMPANIES, INC. ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       256,844,521
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  73,036,645
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             330,206,166
<CASH>                                      58,522,617
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             612,083,088
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            201,587,264
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         17,873,115
<POLICY-OTHER>                              26,749,038
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       46,645,042
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,096
<OTHER-SE>                                 231,023,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               612,083,088
<PREMIUMS>                               1,486,293,824
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         19,686,765
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           7,214,467
<OTHER-INCOME>                             142,186,145
<BENEFITS>                               1,300,922,715
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             41,110,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,061,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         32,843,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                32,843,177
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Application of Alvin T. Hoag and Others for the Removal of Edward McGraw from the Office of Supervisor of the Town of Pittstown, Rensselaer County, N.Y., and Lindsley J. Welling from the Office of Town Clerk of the Town of Pittstown, Rensselaer County, N. Y.

*Public officers*— supervisor — *application for removal.*

Application by Alvin T. Hoag and others for the removal of Edward MeGtraw from the office of supervisor and Lindsley J. Welling from the office of town clerk.

Per Curiam:

The petition presents formal charges upon information and belief. The somees of the information and grounds of belief are not *890stated, and it is probable that the petitioners have no personal- knowledge of the facts alleged. The answering affidavits put in issue directly by the actors the allegations of the complaint. The charge that the supervisor improperly caused to be audited the account of one Marshall is fully answered, and the evidence produced is,so overwhelming that .the charge made upon information and belief has but very little force, and the court does not feel called upon to send the matter to a referee. The Marshall account was a matter, of public record, well understood in the town, and had in fact been audited by a previous board, and it is evident that the present supervisor had no greater part in its audit and payment than the other members of the board, and that each acted upon the former audit and the known facts of the case.. The allegation upon information and belief that the supervisor and the town clerk improperly and as a matter of conspiracy left off from the jury list certain ñames recommended to them by the assessors is fully met by positive allegations in the answering affidavits, and it is for the purposes of this motion quite immaterial whether the alleged names were or were not omitted by the supervisor and the town clerk for improper reasons. The county of Rensselaer, under chapter 557 of the Laws of 1894, as amended by chapter 679 of the Laws of 1896, has a commissioner of jurors, and he is required to .make up the j my lists, and is not required to obtain information from the supervisor, the town clerk or the assessors, and in that county it was not a part of his official duty to ask the town officers to furnish him a list of jurors, nor was it their official duty to furnish such list, and their action with reference thereto is not,, therefore, a matter for which they can be removed. The court is satisfied from the entire record that the interests' of the town or the public do not require a reference, and there is no competent evidence before the eourt, in the face of the answers, which requires further investigation. The application is, therefore, denied, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements against the petitioners.

All concurred, Betts, J., in result.

Application denied, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements against the petitioners.
##### 



Exhibit
10.80
   
 phone   fax  www.wsgr. com
  Via Certified Mail
 
 Re:
    
    Tolling Agreement Entered Into As of January 1, 2006 between Gregory
L. Reyes on the one hand and Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
(Brocade),
David House, William Krause, Nicholas Moore, William OBrien, Christopher Paisley,
Larry Sonsini, Seth Neiman, Neal Dempsey and Sanjay Vaswani, on the other (the
Tolling Agreement)
   Very truly yours,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 
Professional Corporation/s/ Nina LockerNina (Nicki) Locker
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Franklin Corporation;
 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
   Date: November 15, 2010
    
    /s/ John J. KuntzJohn J. KuntzChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6481

ROBERT A. CUFFEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Y. COLEMAN, Head RN Nurse, Lawrenceville

Correctional Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-03-2)

Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert A. Cuffee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. Cuffee appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) for

failing to respond to the filing fee order. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Cuffee v. Coleman, No.

CA-03-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 5, 2003; entered Mar. 6, 2003). We

also deny Cuffee’s motion for show cause. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #12157 and #12158]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1908-DR), dated 05/03/2010.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         04/24/2010 through 04/25/2010.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/07/2010.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/02/2010.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/03/2011.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

      ( print page 27845)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Alabama, dated 05/03/2010, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Walker.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-11744 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
Mexican Restaurants, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-2271) on Form S-8 of Mexican Restaurants, Inc. of our report dated March 28,
2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the Mexican Restaurants,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 28, 2003 and January 2, 2005 and, the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows
for the each of the years in the three-year period ended January 2, 2005, which
report appears in the January 2, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mexican
Restaurants, Inc.

                                               KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 28, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: DUTY ASSIGNMENT

SCHEDULE FOR 

EMERGENCY PETITIONS IN 

THE YEAR 2019

:

:

:

:

No. 508 Judicial Administration Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2018, the emergency duty assignment for 

the year 2019, is herewith adopted. 

January Justice Debra Todd (Eastern District)

Justice David Wecht (Western District)

February Justice Max Baer (Eastern District)

Justice Kevin Dougherty (Western District)

March Justice Christine Donohue (Eastern District)

Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy (Western District)

April Justice David Wecht (Eastern District)

Justice Debra Todd (Western District)

May Justice Kevin Dougherty (Eastern District)

Justice Max Baer (Western District)

June Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy (Eastern District)

Justice Christine Donohue (Western District)

July Justice Debra Todd (Eastern District)

Justice David Wecht (Western District)

August Justice Max Baer (Eastern District)

Justice Kevin Dougherty (Western District)

September Justice Christine Donohue (Eastern District)

Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy (Western District)
October Justice David Wecht (Eastern District)

Justice Debra Todd (Western District)

November Justice Kevin Dougherty (Eastern District)

Justice Max Baer (Western District)

December Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy (Eastern District)

Justice Christine Donohue (Western District)
EXHIBIT 99.2



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 Beverly National Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter E. Simonsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Corporation.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|   
|---
|By:
|   



May 9, 2003
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PEDRO MORALES-CARDENAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30120

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00010-LRS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Lonny R. Suko, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Morales-Cardenas appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), to correct the judgment. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The government contends that the appeal waiver in Morales-Cardenas’ plea

FILED

NOV 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-30120

agreement precludes our reaching the merits of Morales-Cardenas’ claim on

appeal. Because Morales-Cardenas challenges the sentence imposed in the written

judgment as unconstitutional, the appeal waiver does not apply, and we may reach

the merits. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations

omitted).

Morales-Cardenas contends that the district court erred when it declined to

correct the written judgment to reflect the sentence of nine months imprisonment

pronounced at the sentencing hearing. This contention fails because the court’s

oral pronouncement of sentence was ambiguous. Although an unambiguous oral

pronouncement controls a directly conflicting written judgment, see United States

v. Munoz-Dela Rosa, 495 F.2d 253, 256 (9th Cir. 1974) (per curiam), when “the

oral pronouncement is ambiguous or open to reasonable interpretation . . . , it

cannot possibly ‘control.’” United States v. O’Brien, 789 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th

Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.
II

Calendar No. 292

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1595

To designate the United States courthouse at 401 West Washington Street

in Phoenix, Arizona, as the ‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse at 401 West

Washington Street in Phoenix, Arizona, as the ‘‘Sandra

Day O’Connor United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

5 The United States courthouse at 401 West Wash6 ington Street in Phoenix, Arizona, shall be known and des-
2

S 1595 RS

1 ignated as the ‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor United States

2 Courthouse’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

6 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

7 to be a reference to the ‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor United

8 States Courthouse’’.

Calendar No. 292

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1595

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse at 401

West Washington Street in Phoenix, Arizona, asthe ‘‘Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse’’.

SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

Reported without amendment
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00518-CV

FORT WORTH ISD APPELLANT

V.

RAUL DURAN APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant Fort Worth Independent School District’s 

Unopposed Motion For Withdrawal Of Its Appeal In Light Of Settlement.” It is the 

court=s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. 

DELIVERED: March 8, 2012
Exhibit 32



Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual Report of Hall, Kinion & Associates on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







By:

/S/    BRENDA C. RHODESBrenda C. Rhodes Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/S/    MARTIN A. KROPELNICKIMartin A. Kropelnicki Chief Financial Officer






Date: March 29, 2004
No. 1,774.

#### BLACK et al., Respondents, *v.*BLAISE et al., Appellants.

*Appeal from District*Court, *Flathead County.*

*577Decided February 9, 1904.

*Mr. Sidney M.*Logan, and *Messrs. Nolan &*Loeb,' for Appellants.

Per CuriaM.

This appeal is hereby dismissed, without prejudice, however, to-the right to move to reinstate.
#### Max Lefkowitz, Respondent, *v.*Stryker Arms Corporation, Appellant, Impleaded with Harry Bernstein, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 13, 1936.

*Louis L. Liebhoff,*for the appellant.

*Milton Isaacson,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

On the trial of this action against two defendants represented by the same attorney appellant-defendant obtained a dismissal of the complaint, and judgment was directed for plaintiff against the co-defendant. Appellant appeals from an order vacating judgment for costs awarded him as a prevailing party under subdivision 7 of section 164 of the Municipal Court Code.

While it appears from the opinion written by the justice below (158 Misc. 1) that he correctly held *(Dunne*v. *N. Y. Telephone Co.,*107 Misc. 439) that section 164 of the Municipal Court Code covers the amount to be awarded as costs in every case and is complete in itself, the justice vacated the judgment for the reason that the only provision for costs in the situation presented is sub*214division 10 of that section, which enacts that *“*where no provision for costs is otherwise made, the court, in its discretion, may award a sum not exceeding ten dollars.”

We do not agree with that construction of the statute. In our opinion appellant was a prevailing party within the meaning of section 164 , and is entitled to costs as of course under subdivision 7. This view seems in accord with the decision of the Appellate Term of the Second Department in *Greenberg*v. *Sanford Garage Co., Inc.*(N. Y. L. J, May 16, 1936, p. 2526).

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and judgment reinstated.

All concur. Present — Levy, Callahan and Frankentha-LER, J J.