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>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (92)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,388
<PP&E>                                          85,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (33,029)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,529
<SALES>                                        146,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,620
<CGS>                                           90,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (244)<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
<FN>
<F1>PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IS NEGATIVE DUE TO RECOVERY OF RECEIVABLE
PREVIOUSLY RESERVED.
</FN>


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

(1)  The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2003, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                        |  |                      |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:
February 17, 2004 |  | /s/ Mark N. Schwartz
|                        |  |                      |  |                        
|                        |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |                      |  |                        
|Date:
February 17, 2004 |  | /s/ James S. Murphy 
|                        |  |                      |  |                        
|                        |  |                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              105144
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        42597
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    182204
<PP&E>                                              436604
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (229026)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      456759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               792361
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             21706
<OTHER-SE>                                          377742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        456759
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                14109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        14109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    595914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   25252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (618680)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (618680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (618680)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.03)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4144]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Meeting

    The USAF Scientific Advisory Board's Test Center Advisory Groups 
will meet on 18-19 April 1995 at the Arnold Engineering Development 
Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to review test center developments 
and issues of concern to the Commander, AEDC.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-8845.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-4144 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.7: Increase the taxable maximum by an additional 2 percent per year beginning in 2025 until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings. Provide benefit credit for earnings up to the revised taxable maximum. Create a new bend point equal to the current-law taxable maximum with a 5 percent formula factor applying above the new bend point.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
#### In re Application of N. B. BROUGHTON ESTATE to Build Filling Station in City of Raleigh.

(Filed 29 April, 1936.)

Municipal Corporations H l)—

TUe approval by the Board of Adjustment of a denial of a permit to erect a filling station on certain land 'does not constitute *res judicata*upon a second application made therefor three years after the first application upon substantial change of the traffic conditions.

Appeal by petitioner from *Parker, J.,*at October Term, 1935, of Wake.

*Certiorari*to review ruling on application for permit to build filling station.

In April, 1935, permit was issued to “N. B. Broughton Estate” to erect a filling station at the southeast corner of Edenton and Person streets in the city of Baleigh. Objection was made and the matter appealed to the board of adjustment on the ground that such permit was in violation of the zoning act and ordinances, and that a similar application had been denied in April, 1932. Protest overruled and issuance of permit sustained on ground of “changed conditions and in view of the fact that this property has heretofore been zoned for neighborhood business”; whereupon, *certiorari*was had to review the action of the board of adjustment by the Superior Court of Wake County, as provided by statute. 3 C. S., 2776 (r), *et seq.*

Upon evidence offered in the Superior Court, and from a personal inspection of the *locus in quo,*his Honor concluded that there had been no substantial change in conditions and that the adverse ruling in April, *631932, “was and. is *res judicata*in tbe present proceeding.” Tbe action of tbe board, of adjustment was reversed and tbe permit declared null and void.

Petitioner appeals, assigning errors.

*John W. Hinsdale, J. M. Broughton, and W. H. Yarborough, Jr., for petitioner.*

*Charles U. Harris for respondents.*

Stacy, C. J.

The single question presented by the appeal is whether the board of adjustment was precluded, on the principle of *res judicata,*from approving issuance of building permit in April, 1935, by reason of its approval of a denial of a similar application in April, 1932.

The trial court held that the case was controlled by the decision in *Little v. Raleigh,*195 N. C., 793, 143 S. E., 827. The two cases are not alike. In the first place, *the*cited ease was on application “to reopen and rehear” a former decision which bad received judicial approval *sub nomine Harden v. Raleigh,*192 N. C., 395, 135 S. E., 151. Not so here. In the next place, *Little’s case, supra,*was not only identical in allegation and fact with the original case, but was in truth the same case. Here, the traffic conditions as found by the board, “have materially changed since the former application was acted on in 1932.”

There was error in holding the principle of *res judicata*applicable to the facts of the present record. 34 C. J., 808; 43 C. J., 356, *et seq.*

Error.
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________ No. 97-30645 (Summary Calendar)

_________________ JOHN CHAD BOURQUE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NAN YA PLASTIC CORPORATION, AMERICA; ZURICHAMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana

(95-CV-715) August 21, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * After reading the briefs and reviewing the record in this
case, we affirm for essentiall y the same reasons as set forth in the district court’s thorough opinion.
AFFIRMED.
#### PERCY E. WILLIAMS v. FLOYD RAINES and Wife, THELMA NOE RAINES.

(Filed 7 November, 1951.)

1. Appeal and Error § 39b—

Assignments of error relating to an issue answered in appellant’s favor can afford no ground for new trial.

2. Appeal and Error § 6c (6) —

Exception to misstatement of a contention must be entered in apt time.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Morris, J.,*May Term, 1951, LeNOir.

Action for damages arising out of a collision of two automobiles at a street intersection. '

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury. The jury answered each of the first two issues “yes.” From judgment on the verdict plaintiff appealed.

*J ones, Reed & Griffin fox plaintiff, appellant.*

*Whitaker <& Jeffress for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

All of plaintiff’s assignments of error, save one, are bottomed on exceptions to the charge of the court on the first issue. As the verdict on that issue was in favor of plaintiff, any error in the charge of the court in respect thereto is harmless and affords no cause for a new trial.

The lone exception to the charge on the second issue is directed to the statement of a contention. It does not appear that this exception was entered in apt time. In any event, we are unable to perceive that plaintiff was prejudiced thereby.

*453Tbe jury, in a trial free from error on the second issue, has resolved the question of contributory negligence against the plaintiff. He must abide the result.

No error.
#### State *v.*Wallace B. Davis

(203 N. C., 47).

*Writ of certiorari*denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ELLISON LAKELL COOPER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 4:12

- cr - 00520

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : April 14, 2022 Decided: April 19, 2022

Before DIAZ and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ellison Lakell Cooper , Appellant Pro Se. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Florence, South Carolina, fo r Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ellison Lakell Cooper appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have
reviewed the record in this case and discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We decline to consider Cooper’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court allegedly failed to pronounce all discretionary supervised release terms at his original sentencing. See In re Under Seal , 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2 014) (“Our settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)).
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED


I, Pervez A. Qureshi, President and Chief Executive Officer of Activant Solutions Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of my knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months endedMarch 31, 2011as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); and

|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 28, 2011


/s/ Pervez A. QureshiName: Pervez A. QureshiTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification which accompanies the Report is not to be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>   1


                            [WELLS FARGO LETTERHEAD]

                                                                      EXHIBIT 10

July 31, 2000


Joe Stasney
Young America Corporation
717 Faxon Road
Young America, MN 55397

RE:  Waiver of Default

Dear Joe,

Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association (the "Bank") and Young America
Corporation (the "Borrower") are parties to a certain Credit Agreement dated
April 7, 1998 (the "Agreement") as amended.

Section 5.10 of the Agreement states that the Borrower will maintain a Current
Ratio at not less than 1.10 to 1.00 for the Covenant Computation Date of June
30, 2000. For the Covenant Computation Date of June 30, 2000, the Borrower's
Current Ratio was 1.05 to 1.00, thereby creating an Event of Default under the
Agreement.

Section 5.9 of the Agreement states that the Borrower will maintain an Interest
Coverage Ratio at not less than 1.00 to 1.00 for the Covenant Computation Date
of June 30, 2000. For the Covenant Computation Date of June 30, 2000, the
Borrower's Interest Coverage Ratio was 0.82 to 1.00, thereby creating an Event
of Default under the Agreement.

We hereby waive the violations of Section 5.9 and 5.10 for the period ending
June 30, 2000 as noted in the paragraphs above. This waiver is unique and
specific. The Bank does not waive any other portions of the Agreement, nor do
they give up any of the rights and remedies granted to them thereunder.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Jeffrey H. Morsman

Jeffrey H. Morsman
Assistant Vice President
EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                         

The Board of Directors
USFreightways Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:

Form           Registration No.         Subject
S-8            33-57634                 Employees' Salary Deferral Thrift Plan
S-8            33-58290                 1992 Stock Option Plan
S-8            33-63628                 Employees' Stock Purchase Plan
S-8            33-79150                 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee
                                             Directors
of USFreightways Corporation of our reports dated January 22, 1997 except for
note 12, which is as of February 10, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of USFreightwayys Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 28, 1996
and December 30, 1995 and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 28, 1996 and the related financial statement schedule, which reports
appear in or are incoporated by reference in the December 28, 1996 annual 
report on Form 10-K of USFreightways Corporation.

Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 1997
II 

Calendar No. 235 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3455 

To prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report bank account 

deposits and withdrawals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was read 

the first time 

JANUARY 18, 2022 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report 

bank account deposits and withdrawals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting IRS Fi5 nancial Surveillance Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3455 PCS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NEW REQUIREMENTS TO REPORT 

2 BANK ACCOUNT DEPOSITS AND WITH3 DRAWALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

5 (including any delegate of the Secretary) may not require 

6 any financial institution to report— 

7 (1) the inflows or outflows of any account main8 tained by such institution, or 

9 (2) any balances, transactions, transfers, or 

10 similar information with respect to any such ac11 count, 

12 except to the extent that such reporting is required under 

13 any program, or other provision of law, as in effect on 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of this sec16 tion shall take effect on the day after the date of enact17 ment of this Act. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 235 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3455 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of new requiredrawals. ments to report bank account deposits and withJANUARY 18, 2022 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS