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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,034
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                       377
<INVENTORY>                                      2,128
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,687
<PP&E>                                           6,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,248
<SALES>                                         29,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,662
<CGS>                                           15,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   377
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.91)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 10.7

                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE

         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE dated as of March 25, 1998, by and
between FREEWAY 130 L.L.C. ("Landlord"), and A.C. MOORE, INC. ("Tenant"),
pursuant to Indenture of Lease (the "Lease") dated August 14, 1995.

                                  INTRODUCTION

         A. Landlord and Tenant have agreed to modify the Lease to redefine the
Demised Premises thereunder.

         B In consideration of the change to the Demised Premises, Tenant has
agreed to increase the Basic Rent.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, Landlord and Tenant
hereby agree as follows:

1. All defined terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have
the same meaning as set forth therefor in the Lease.

2. The Lease is hereby amended by replacing Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1"
thereto with the new Exhibit "A" dated 2/9/98 attached hereto, which shows the
addition of 145,000 square feet (Building Shell 132,500 sf, Mezzanine 12,500 sf)
onto the existing building, plus additional car and trailer parking. The
specifications for the building are attached as Exhibit "B-1".

3. Paragraph 1.03 of the Lease is amended so that the term of the Lease shall be
reset for a 6 year term from the completion of the addition (Commencement Date).

4. Paragraph 2.01 of the Lease is amended so that the Basic Rent during the term
of the Lease, for all purposes under the Lease, shall be equal to $1,049,558.00
per year, $544,958.00 of which will be adjusted by the charge in the CPI as
defined in Article 2.02 (b) and (c), on May 1, 2002.

5. All provisions of the Lease not inconsistent herewith shall remain in full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment To
Lease as of the day and year first above mentioned.
                                                    
                                                  FREEWAY 130 L.L.C.

                                                   By:_________________________
                                                            General Partner

                                                   A.C. MOORE, INC.
                                                   By:_________________________
                                                   Attest: ____________________
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSC Holdings Inc.;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:
 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;b)
    
    [Not Applicable]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;
andd)
    
    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 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
over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ David MathiesonDavid MathiesonSenior Vice President, andChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SAMUEL JACKSON, #361449

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-CV-11438

v. Judge Robert H. Cleland

JUSTIN BROUGHTON, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF

COSTS AND AUTHORIZING THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL

TO COLLECT COSTS AFTER SERVICE IS MADE

The Court has determined that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis. The

Court, therefore, ORDERS the United States Marshal to serve the appropriate papers in

the case on defendants Justin Broughton and Blake Hibben without prepayment of the

costs for such service. The Marshal may collect the usual and customary costs from

plaintiff after effecting service.

The Court ORDERS plaintiff to serve a copy of all future documents on

defendants or on defense counsel if legal counsel represents the defendants. Plaintiff

shall attach to all original documents filed with the Court of the Court a certificate stating

the date that plaintiff mailed a copy of the original document to defendant or defense

counsel. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 6, 2010
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 6, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLARD L. SLOAN, EUGENE J.

WINNINGHAM, and JAMES L. KELLEY, 

on behalf of themselves and a similarly 

situated class, Case No. 09-cv-10918

Hon. Paul D. Borman

Plaintiffs, Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub

v. Class Action

BORGWARNER, INC., BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS and

BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED 

TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

EXHIBIT 20 

TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS TO LIABILITY

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 104-5 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 5560
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

United States of America, Case Number: 09-11736 

 Plaintiff, 

 Honorable: Patrick J. Duggan 

 Magistrate: Paul J. Komives 

 Claim Number: 1998A14197 

Sharon E. Cato, 

 Defendant, 

 

Pamela S. Ritter Sharon E. Cato 

Attorney for Plaintiff In Pro Per Defendant 

Holzman Ritter & Corkery PLLC. 19665 Cameron 

28366 Franklin Road Detroit, Michigan 48203 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 352-4340 

usa@holzmanlaw.com

P47886 

 

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

WITH PARTIAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Upon the stipulation of Pamela S. Ritter, attorney for the United States of 

America, plaintiff herein, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment is entered in favor the United States of 

America, and against Sharon E. Cato, in the principal amount of $1,030.22, plus 

prejudgment interest from the date of default to date of judgment together with postjudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S. C 1961, and costs of $350.00, for a total balance 

of $2,627.47 owing as of May 11, 2009.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant, Sharon E. Cato, may satisfy 

said Judgment by making monthly payments of $65.00 beginning June 24, 2009. 

Payments are to continue until the full amount of the Judgment including damages and 

post judgment interest is paid in full. As long as the Defendant is in substantial 

compliance with this partial payment provision, no process shall issue for the 

enforcement of the Judgment. 

2:09-cv-11736-PJD-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 05/27/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 12
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Defendant shall fail to make one single 

payment within ten (10) days of its due date, it will be deemed that the Defendant is not 

in substantial compliance with the partial payment provisions of this Judgment, and 

such partial payment provisions as contained herein shall be terminated and held for 

naught, and the Plaintiff may issue any process for the enforcement of this Judgment. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: May 27, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of 

record on May 27, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

2:09-cv-11736-PJD-PJK Doc # 5 Filed 05/27/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 13
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41050

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO LOPEZ-SALGADO, also known as Nicolas Vargas-Uriostegui,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-908-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Lopez-Salgado argues that the 30-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for 

illegal reentry after prior deportation was greater than necessary to meet the 

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based, and 

that the 12-level enhancement for his prior alien transportation conviction was 

 

* 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

March 30, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41050 Document: 00513444616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2016
No. 15-41050

2

too severe. He further asserts that his illegal reentry did not pose a danger to 

others. 

The within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338

(5th Cir. 2008). After considering Lopez-Salgado’s arguments, the district 

court determined that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was 

appropriate based on Lopez-Salgado’s repeated removals from, and reentries 

into, this country. Lopez-Salgado’s benign motive for returning to this country 

is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States 

v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). His argument 

regarding the staleness of his prior alien transportation conviction is likewise 

insufficient. See United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 234-35 (5th Cir. 

2011). Further, we have rejected the argument that § 2L1.2’s purported lack 

of an empirical basis necessarily renders a sentence under it unreasonable, see

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009), and that § 2L1.2 

overstates the seriousness of the offense. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 

513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Lopez-Salgado’s argument that the sentence is greater than necessary to 

meet the goals of § 3553(a) amounts to a disagreement with the district court’s 

balancing of the sentencing factors, and we will not reweigh those factors. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). He has failed to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186

(5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-41050 Document: 00513444616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2016
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hangover Joe’s Holding Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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











Dated: August 14, 2012
By
/s/ Michael JaynesMichael Jaynes, Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32





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
Golden Phoenix Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), we, Thomas Klein, Chief Executive Officer, and J.
Roland Vetter, Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  April
      9, 2010
            /s/Thomas
      KleinThomas
      KleinChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
      April 9, 2010
            /s/
      J. Roland VetterJ.
      Roland VetterChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3965 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3965

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount which 
            may be contributed to defined contribution plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1996

  Mr. Leach introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount which 
            may be contributed to defined contribution plan.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE CONTRIBUTED TO DEFINED 
              CONTRIBUTION PLAN.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 415(c)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation for defined 
contribution plans) is amended by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting 
``40 percent''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to years beginning after December 31, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
aitta IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RICHARD DONTA SATTERFIELD, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 69675



# FILED MAR 3 0 2016
TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL DEPUTY CLERK This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a memorandum and motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Richard Scotti, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from the aforementioned order, we lack jurisdiction. 

### Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Richard Donta Satterfield Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2532

___________ Bruce Kilgore , * * Appellant, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court for * the Eastern District of * Missouri. Michael Bowersox, * * [To be published] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 1999 Filed: June 15, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The motion for stay of execution is denied. The application for a certificate of appealability is denied. It is so ordered.2–

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### CITY OF ALBANY, Missouri, Respondent, v. Randy W. HILL, Appellant.

No. WD 51020.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 5, 1995.

Jerold L. Drake, Asst. Public Defender, Grant City, for appellant.

David P. Parman, Pros. Atty., Gentry County, Albany, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and ULRICH and SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing appeal from conviction in municipal court of operating a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit and reinstating the judgment and sentence of said municipal court.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
EX 10.10.4 - 01.31.2014




AMENDMENT TO THE
BAKERCORP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. 2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
MANAGEMENT NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
of
DAVID IGATA


WHEREAS, BakerCorp International Holdings, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and David Igata (the “Optionee”) entered into the BakerCorp International Holdings, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan Management Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement on June 29, 2011 (the “Agreement”);
WHEREAS, the Corporation wishes to amend the Agreement (the “Amendment”) to allow for the accelerated vesting of the Option in certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, all capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the BakerCorp International Holdings, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 1(b) shall be amended and restated with the addition of the underlined text:


Vesting.  Unless the Option is previously terminated pursuant to the Plan or this Agreement and subject to the terms of any other agreement between the Optionee and the Company, so long as Optionee remains in Employment, the Option shall become vested and exercisable as to five percent (5%) of the Shares subject hereto on each of the first twenty (20) quarterly anniversaries of the Date of Grant, such that one hundred percent (100%) of the Shares subject hereto will be vested on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Date of Grant; provided, however, that if during such Employment but prior to such fifth (5th) anniversary, (i) there occurs a Change in Control, the unvested portion of the Option shall become fully vested and immediately exercisable on the consummation of the Change in Control or (ii) the Optionee’s Employment is terminated (a “Termination”) (A) by any member of the Company Group without Cause; (B) by any member of the Company Group due to the Optionee’s Disability; (C) by the Optionee for Good Reason; or (D) due to the Optionee’s death, in each case, the additional portion of the Option that would have vested had the Optionee’s Employment continued until the one (1) year anniversary of the date of Termination, shall become vested upon such Termination.
		
	2.
	Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged, and shall continue in full force and effect.