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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                        96
<INVENTORY>                                      9,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,539
<PP&E>                                          17,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,635
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,174)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,154
<SALES>                                         25,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,873
<CGS>                                           19,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,474
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (885)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,589
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,589
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
#### Mary Ann Wright, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company and Another, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

All concur.
Form of Amendment to Exhibit A to the Performance Stock Unit Awards



 Exhibit 10(t) 
 AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT A 
 TO PERFORMANCE STOCK UNITS AWARD AGREEMENT 
 DATED                      

VESTING OF PERFORMANCE STOCK UNITS 
 Exhibit A to the
above-referenced Award Agreement is amended so that, effective for the Annual Performance Periods beginning after May 31, 2009, the number of Annual Performance Stock Units that shall vest, if any, following the end of the applicable Annual
Performance Period shall be determined by multiplying the number of Performance Stock Units for such Annual Performance Period by the “Vesting Percentage,” as determined below, provided that the maximum Vesting Percentage for any Annual
Performance Period shall be 150% of the Annual Performance Stock Units. 
 “Annual PSU Rating” for each Annual Performance Period beginning after
May 31, 2009 = 50% (MIP Rating for Earnings Per Share) + 50% (MIP Rating for Sales) 
 The “Vesting Percentage” shall be determined according
to the following grid: 
  

						
	 Annual PSU Rating
	 	  	  	Vesting Percentage	 
	0.00	 		  	0	% 
	0.50	 		  	25	% 
	1.00	 		  	50	% 
	1.40	 		  	100	% 
	1.60	 		  	125	% 
	1.80 or Greater	 		  	150	% 

 The MIP Ratings and Vesting Percentage shall be as determined by the Company. 
 The Vesting Percentage shall be interpolated based on the Annual PSU Rating in the above table. The Vesting Percentage shall be rounded to the nearest 1.0%, with .5%
being rounded up. The number of Annual Performance Stock Units that vest pursuant to the Vesting Percentage shall be rounded to the nearest whole number, with .5 being rounded up. For example, an Annual PSU Rating of 1.15 would result in a Vesting
Percentage of 69%. 
  

 A-1
### x^cks: _'\o 'TX. C,- 9 -CfZ 

### Cbf^oTi^,.



### X Xo.e: n X

_ 

## _Xe vexk -wA- U65 ^ 

## -Hi -Xc>-U)£(X SXVxA oumX t6u.R/ XXO.X. ^'\d\ -XcV -TXkW^ _CAf«x^^

- - X O&an^X -V^v UK^ch R. 

## VXVvtMriOA p^ cxg_ 0(%S __CktjX »R\vji mkh, 

## Cv tVaG^v\bVcfc^_^X X

___, _.XV» X cTM (f 

## -h^- ^V\ Xf^XlCvvi 

## vVVqxX^:^aiX#:&oV^v_i^ JXi. -^-1 lc£)^ms



### v>e, Cv ^'(i_ZhWcX(A/Xi



### (Xf:us/L 0^ 

## PiO-!i^5^59V^ 

## ' 1 ' ^ t«o es

cn X O

co o

c? OS o a:o ...a..- scn&J;'

.OTO

X-T'l '•>>



### VVJ^ ,,_.Cb'^^X>rr(2jV:V'»

. Pi^C\ 

### 16 RL-Q-!^-- SXKXXt o^r 

## uco (kmt^

- y - X5_ -:~

yrfiojxn•^tnori£tE£SO=^Sd."SAT'iA?-no?-2iot;.<tsc;RIOGRiitf^DeOlSTRicf^^'24fiOV2015PMlxPTK^y.-:O'r?«ic'*:oCO—fc:o._oo-^*1-1.jgcau?0e>-»V->—cUJ7S205-30373S\am^N\\KScXr^.1,j,I,I./1,.JJI.|//I„/II,m/|),Hm||,.Ill,hfl,,„,,/!,/),//).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CADMUS
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,981
<INVENTORY>                                     28,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,605
<PP&E>                                         275,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,406
<BONDS>                                        220,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,507
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   457,126
<SALES>                                        256,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               256,153
<CGS>                                          201,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  281,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (397)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   842
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,305)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,902)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(2.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(2.21)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6419
ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES W. VANMETER, Regional Hearing Officer; PAUL W. BREWTON, CACI Investigator; SCOTT PORTER, Inmate Representative, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-93-2277-22-BD) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Eugene Slappy, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr., HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, COTHRAN, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Slappy v. Vanmeter , No. CA-93- 2277-22-BD (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### John W. Jacobus, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Olmstead, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Thomas Simpson, Appellant, v. Abram Kling, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30405-30406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13033]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank

[[Page 30406]]

holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, 
control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding 
company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank 
holding company, including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 25, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 
33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Toronto, Canada, and its subsidiaries 
TD US P&C Holdings ULC, Calgary, Canada, and TD Bank US Holding 
Company, Portland, Maine; to acquire at least 39 percent of the voting 
shares and to subsequently acquire additional voting shares of The 
South Financial Group, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of Carolina First Bank, both of Greenville, South Carolina.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 26, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-13033 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00332-CV

Bruce WEBB,

Appellant

v.

Horst GROSSPETER,

Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22-01-14102-DCV

Honorable Maribel Flores, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s May 12, 2022 Order 

Denying Defendants’ Special Appearance is AFFIRMED. We order appellant Bruce Webb to pay 

the costs of this appeal.

SIGNED February 22, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
## The Honorable Juan Vasquez, Judge, United States Tax Court. 1 

# United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4213

___________ Richard K. McGirl and * Christine M. McGirl, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the v. * United States Tax Court * Commissioner of Internal * [UNPUBLISHED] Revenue, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 23, 1997 Filed: November 28, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Richard K. McGirl andChristine M. McGirl (“appellants”) appeal from the U nited States Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner o f 1 Internal Revenue’s determination that appellants’ unreportedincome for the 1989, 1990, and 1991 tax years should not be reduced by the amount of loans that appellants maintain they

### -2-

obta inedfrom a third party; that appellants failed to prove that thei r sandwich shop business incurred e xpenses in excess of those claimed on its 1989, 19 90, and 1991 tax returns; and that the underreporting of th e business’s income for those years was due, in part, to fraudulent inten t onthe pa rt of Richard K. McGirl. McGirl v. Commissioner , No. 11510-94 , 1996 WL 385813 (T.C. July 11, 1996) (memorandum and order). Jurisdictionwas proper in the tax court based upon Section 6213 of the Inte rnal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”). Jurisdiction on appeal is prope r based upon I.R.C. § 7482(a) (1994). The notice of appeal was timely filed under Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The t ax court held that appellants failed to meet their burden o f showing t hat they are entitled to additional deductions and that th e Commissioner’s determination of gross income is incorrect. Slip op. at 14- 15, 23- 24. Specifically, the tax court found it “improbable an d unc onvincing” that appellants received loans in the amounts that the y sou ght to characterize as nonincome or incurred business expenses whic h were not reflected on the business’s 1989, 1990, and 1991 tax returns. Id. at 20. Moreover, the tax court h eld that the Commissioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that at least some part of appellants ’ underpayments were attributable t o fraud on the part of Richard K. McGirl. Id. at 35. Having carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and th e well-r easoned analysis of the tax court, we conclude that no error of law or fact appears and that an opinion wo uld lack precedential value. See 8 th Cir. R. 47B. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the tax court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**965 CA 13-02145**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

ANTHONY PAONE, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

ALEXANDER & CATALANO, LLC, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY R. MANDRONICO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
MURA & STORM, PLLC, BUFFALO (SCOTT D. MANCUSO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered July 17, 2013. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against defendant and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 1 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 2 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 3 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 4 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 5 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 6 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 7 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 8 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 9 of

12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 10

of 12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 11

of 12
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2925 Filed: 07/11/19 Entered: 07/11/19 09:46:48 Page 12

of 12
NO. 07-05-0292-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 14, 2005

______________________________ PHILLIP CHRISTIAN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 64 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. A1516 0-0309; H ONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAI D, JR., JU DGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ. ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND Appellant

Phillip Christian has given notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the offense of theft. The appellate court clerk receive d and filed the trial court clerk’s record on September 14, 2005. The trial co urt reporter’s record was filed on Septembe r 12, 200 5. Byletter da ted Octobe r 25, 200 5, the ap pellate clerk reminded counsel for appellant that appellant’s brief was due on October 14, 2005, and that neither the brief nor a motion2

for a further extension of time had bee n received. Counsel for appellant was further advised by such letter that if no response to the letter was received by November 4, 200 5, the appeal would be abated to the trial cou rt for hea ring purs uant to R ule of Ap pellate Procedur

e 38.8(b) . No resp onse has been received. Accordingly, this appeal is abated and thecause is reman ded to th e trial court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)(2 ). Upon r emand, th e judge of the tria l court is directed to immediately cause no tice to b e given of and toconduct a hearin g to dete rmine: (1) whether a ppellan t desires to prosec ute this appeal; (2) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, then whet her appellant is indigent, and if not indigent, whether counsel for appellant has abandon ed the ap peal; (3) if appellant desires to pr osecute this appeal, whether appellant’s present counsel should be replaced; and (4) whatorders, i f any, sho uld be e ntered toassure th e fi lin g of appropri ate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal if ap pellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or, if appe llan t desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal w ill be diligently pursued. If the trial court determines that the present attorney for appellant should be replaced, the court should cause the clerk of this court to be furnished the name, address, and State Bar of Texas identifi cation n umber of t he newly-appointed or new ly-retain ed attorn ey. In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental cl erk’s record. The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental3

reporter’s record. Those supplemental records shall besubmitted to the clerk of this cour t no later than December 14, 2005.

Per Curiam
Do not pu blish.
#### Oliver W. Barnes, Respondent, v. James Seligman and others, Appellants.

— Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3063 Filed: 07/18/19 Entered: 07/18/19 14:52:05 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3063 Filed: 07/18/19 Entered: 07/18/19 14:52:05 Page 2 of

2
FREDDIE L. WADE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0389

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

Freddie L. Wade, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Freddie L. Wade was a juvenile when he committed seconddegree murder. Following a jury trial the court sentenced him to life, with life as a 
2

minimum-mandatory sentence due to discharge of the firearm causing death. 

Thereafter Appellant filed a timely rule 3.850 motion challenging this sentence as 

unconstitutional due to the trial court failing to consider his juvenile status when 

imposing the sentence. He also raises three claims of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel.

We reverse the appeal as to the claim asserting unconstitutionality of the life 

sentence and remand for the trial court to resentence Appellant pursuant to the 

individualized factors under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, which must be

considered when sentencing a juvenile, as explained in Landrum v. State, 192 So. 

3d 459 (Fla. 2016). See also Carter v. State, 2016 WL 3883509 (Fla. 1st DCA July 

18, 2016). As the appellant filed an initial brief but failed to address any of the 

remaining claims, he has waived the right to have them considered in this appeal. 

See Watson v. State, 975 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Traditionally, 

when a defendant submits a brief in an appeal from a summary denial of a 

postconviction motion, this Court may review only those arguments raised and 

fully addressed in the brief.”).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.