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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          27,070
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             243
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,325
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     81,813
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          32,908
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            33,130
<LOANS>                                        496,256
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 669,761
<DEPOSITS>                                     523,637
<SHORT-TERM>                                    45,084
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,864
<LONG-TERM>                                     31,595
<COMMON>                                         2,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 669,761
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,869
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,729
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   150
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,748
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,690
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,745
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,003
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      480
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,957
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,957
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.60
<LOANS-NON>                                        848
<LOANS-PAST>                                       194
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   225
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,322
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,801
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      419
<RECOVERIES>                                       188
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,050
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,988
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,062
        

</TABLE>
#### John T. Crim, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Sarah J. Crawford, administratrix, defendant in error.

(Montoomery, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.)

Where the defendant moved to open a judgment against him, so as to enable him to take the benefit of the Relief Act of 1868, which motion was overruled, he is not thereby estopped from moving to set aside the judgment, on the ground that he had never been served with the petition and process on which the judgment was founded. (R.)

Judgment. Estoppel. Before Judge Clark. Schley Superior Court. October Term, 1872.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

C. T. Goode, for plaintiff in error.

B. B. Hinton *;*N. A. Smith, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a motion made in the Court below to set aside a judgment by the defendant therein. The defendant first made a motion to open the judgment, so as to take the benefit of the Relief Act of 1868, which being overruled by the Court, the defendant then moved to set aside (he judgment on the ground that he had never been served with the petition and process on which the judgment was founded. The plaintiff then moved to dismiss defendant’s last motion, on the ground that be was estopped from making it. The Court held that the defendant was estopped from making that motion, because he had made the prior motion to open the judgment under the provisions of the Relief Act of 1868, and dismissed defendant’s motion, to which he excepted.

In our judgment, it was error in the Court, in dismissing the defendant’s second motion, on the ground that he was estopped from making it on the statement of facts contained in the record. Estoppels are not generally favored by the law, because the truth is excluded thereby. The fact that the de*629fendant made the motion to open the judgment, to take the benefit of the Relief Act, would be evidence to be considered on the trial of the issue, as to whether he had been served with process-in the original suit, but it did not estop him from showing that fact, if he could do so, and we think he should have been allowed the opportunity to have proved the truth of the ease.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
#### Nannie L. Vaughn, Respondent, v. Mary M. Strong, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. No opinion.
Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc.-10ka


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 Annual Report of Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Wang Hui, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated this 9th day of September, 2011./s/ Wang HuiWang Hui, Director and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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, I, Eugene Miller, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1
(the "Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



Date: November 11, 2002                   /s/ Eugene Miller
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Eugene Miller
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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, I, Mark Rapoport, Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1
(the "Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



Date: November 11, 2002                   /s/ Mark Rapoport
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Mark Rapoport
                                          Chief Operating Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### Colonial Discount Co., Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Robert Edward Rumens, Defendant.*

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County,

May 23, 1936.

*Thomas R. Fay,*for the motion.

*Joseph B. Quinlan,*opposed.

*

 Affd., 249 App. Div. 736.

Cuff, J.

This is an action on a promissory note. The facts are: Defendant purchased an automobile fram Stein & Stein Motors, Inc., giving in payment therefor a used car and a note, which was to be paid in eighteen installments of forty-three dollars each. Defendant also executed a chattel mortgage to secure the payments. Defendant returned the car after two months because the seller had sold it as a 1934 model when in fact it was a 1933 model. Seller admitted the error and proceeded to arrange to deliver to defendant the car that he had ordered. These negotiations were intrusted to a salesman of Stein & Stein, who obtained from defendant another chattel mortgage and another note, each signed in *847blank. Defendant overlooked the detail of having the first mortgage and note that he signed returned to him. This furnished the salesman with an opportunity to steal, and he corruptly put the notes and mortgages through two finance companies (one being plaintiff). Of course, he identified different cars in the mortgages. Plaintiff, as assignee of the second chattel mortgage and second note, now sues on the assigned note. The fact is that the car described in the chattel mortgage assigned to plaintiff had been sold to another person by Stein & Stein Motors, Inc., two months earlier; therefore, it was never delivered to defendant. Defendant paid in full for the car which he did receive, making his payments to the finance company which held the first note and first mortgage. Plaintiff, therefore, became possessed of a worthless chattel mortgage and note because Stein & Stein Motors had knowledge through their employee that the car described in the mortgage was not the property of the mortgagor (defendant herein). Stein & Stein Motors had breached the agreement before the assignment was made. The note and chattel mortgage were purchased by plaintiff at the same time. Therefore, plaintiff took both with all of their infirmities and subject to the equities existing in favor of defendant. Stein & Stein Motors suing on the note alone could not recover because under these circumstances the note and chattel mortgage must be treated as one obligation. *(Federal Credit Bureau, Inc.,*v. *Zelkor Dining Car Corp.,*238 App. Div. 379.) Plaintiff charged with notice, cannot recover either.

Motion granted.
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





I,
Westley V. Thompson, principal executive officer of Sun Life Assurance Company
of Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Westley V.
      ThompsonWestley
      V. ThompsonPresident,
      SLF U.S.(principal
      executive officer)November
      14, 2008
#### In the Matter of Susan Davenport, Respondent, v Scott Ouweleen, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 701]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered January 14, 2002. The order, inter alia, granted petitioner’s cross petition for sole custody of the parties’ child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the condition with respect to any future application for resumption of visitation and/or communication and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order that granted petitioner’s cross petition for sole custody of the parties’ child and suspended visitation and communication between respondent and the child. Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court properly suspended visitation between respondent and the child. The evidence establishes that visitation is detrimental to the child’s welfare *(see Matter of Mallory v Mashack,*266 AD2d 907 [1999]).

We agree with respondent, however, that the court lacked the *1080authority to condition any future application for resumption of visitation and/or communication upon his completion of a mental health evaluation and compliance with any and all treatment recommendations *(see Murek v Murek*[appeal No. 2], 292 AD2d 839, 840 [2002]). We therefore modify the order by vacating that condition. We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13853]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 24, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Thomas L. Rees, Colorado City, Texas; to retain voting shares of 
City National Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting 
shares of The City National Bank of Colorado City, both of Colorado 
City, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 4, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-13853 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 31 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 I, B.
Keith Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify
that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Environmental
Corporation, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rule 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b. [this
paragraph has been omitted]; and
 
 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 quarterly 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 officers 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 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 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.
 
 Date: 
May 20, 2005
 */s/
B. Keith Parker*
 B. Keith
Parker
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
  
 -19-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 5, 2014

p0825

Order 

Clerk

September 5, 2014

148309(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148309

COA: 316976

Calhoun CC: 07-000145-FH

ANTHONY CLIFFORD GATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28, 

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Cazadores Construction, LLC 

Under Contract No. FA4661-14-C-0012 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61511 

Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq. 

Kristin E. Zachman, Esq. 

Bailey & Bailey, P.C. 

San Antonio, TX 

Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 

Caryl A. Potter, Esq. 

Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 3 April 2018 

Administrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61511, Appeal of Cazadores Construction, LLC, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Amendment No. 1 - Employees Stock Ownership Plan



 Exhibit 10(b)(i) 
 AMENDMENT No. 1 TO 
 RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS, LTD. EMPLOYEES STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

 (As Amended and Restated Effective June 1, 2002) 
 RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS, LTD., a Delaware corporation, hereby further amends the Richardson Electronics, Ltd. Employees Stock Ownership Plan, as
previously amended and restated effective June 1, 2002 and as thereafter further amended (the “Plan”), as follows effective May 30, 2009: 
 1. Section 2.16A is added to the Plan to read as follows: 
 2.16A
“EPCRS”: The Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System of the Internal Revenue Service. 
 2. Section 4.1(f) is added
to the Plan to read as follows: 
 (f) The Employer shall also contribute to the Plan such amounts as may be necessary in
order to effect corrections of benefits due Participants in accordance with EPCRS. 
 3. Section 6.1(g) is added to the Plan to read as
follows: 
 (g) Any amounts contributed by the Employer pursuant to Section 4.1(f) for the purpose of correcting benefits
of Participants pursuant to EPCRS shall be allocated to the respective Accounts of such Participants in accordance with the corrections procedures formulated by the Employer in accordance with EPCRS and (except for EPCRS self-corrections) approved
by the Internal Revenue Service. 
 Dated May 29, 2009. 
  

			
	RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS, LTD.
		
	By	 	 /s/ Kyle C. Badger

		 	Kyle C. Badger
		 	Executive Vice President,
		 	General Counsel and Secretary
EXHIBIT B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4211-2 Filed: 10/15/19 Entered: 10/15/19 14:42:05 Page 1

of 2
EXHIBIT B

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE 

FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2019 THROUGH JULY 31, 2019

Task Total Total

Code Hours Fees

3 Financial Analysis (Requested by Counsel, or Otherwise) 85.4 $ 58,883.00

4 13-Week Cash Flow / MOR / Liquidity Analysis 29.7 18,041.50

5 Due Diligence of Debtor's Assets and Liabilities 105.0 72,025.00

6 Due Diligence of Wildfire Safety Plan and Related Analysis 6.0 3,570.00

7 Debtor Professionals - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 20.6 16,217.00

8 UCC Professionals - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 1.5 1,402.50

9 Other Professionals / Interested Parties - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 36.4 40,948.00

10 Tort Claimants (Counsel/FA) - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 65.1 68,884.50

11 Assist Counsel in Responses / Objections to Bankruptcy Court Motions 44.0 33,320.00

12 Committee Related Matters - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 104.1 103,589.50

13 Bankruptcy Filings, Motions and Other Document Review 134.3 95,508.50

14 Review of Executory Contracts and Related Analysis 118.1 75,149.50

15 Review of Employee-Related Matters, Including Retention Plans 91.2 65,314.00

16 Review of Claims and Related Analysis 17.5 13,552.50

17 Asset Sale(s), Strategic Alternatives, and Related Analysis 12.0 8,340.00

20 Benchmarking and Related Analysis 6.4 4,128.00

21 Term Sheets, Plan, and Disclosure Statement Analysis 206.2 172,799.00

22 Review of Discovery Documents and Deposition Preparation (Witnesses) 17.4 16,713.00

23 Deposition(s), Testimony, Court Hearing(s), and Related Preparation / Attendance 38.8 37,056.00

25 Regulatory and Legislative Matters, and Related Financial Analysis 39.8 28,941.00

26 Travel Time - Non Working Travel 16.0 18,170.00

27 Project Administration 57.2 47,789.50

29 Time and Expenses Tracking - -

31 Fee Application Preparation 65.3 36,053.50

Subtotal 1,318.0 1,036,395.50

Less: 50% Discount for Non-Working Travel Time (9,085.00)

Grand Total 1,318.0 $ 1,027,310.50

Task Description

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4211-2 Filed: 10/15/19 Entered: 10/15/19 14:42:05 Page 2

of 2
#### Frances J. Romaine v. Annie Decker.

Re-argument ordered.