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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<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>                                         482,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    558,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,242,049
<PP&E>                                         165,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,533,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          809,104
<BONDS>                                         28,797
<COMMON>                                         2,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     692,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,533,195
<SALES>                                        663,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               663,406
<CGS>                                          537,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  791,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               830,519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,521,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,521,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                201,150
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,320,659)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
|    |                                                                                                                |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of GCI, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2013; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                     |
|---------------------|
|                     |  |
| Date: March 6, 2014 | /s/ Peter J. Pounds |
|                | Peter J. Pounds |
|                | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director |
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 27, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00810

- CV

NINA TOKPAWHIEA , Appellant

V. ATHERTON FRISCO HOLD ING LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007

- 02016

- 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III The filing fee and clerk’s record in this case ha ve not been filed. By postcard

August 17, 2023, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed

appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant

that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appe al. By letter dated October

9, 2023, we inform ed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because

appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide

, within ten days, verification she (1) had either paid for or made ar rangements to pay

for the clerk’s record, or (2) was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We– 2

–

cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal

without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filin g fee, provided the

required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the

status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 3 7.3(b ); 42.3(b), (c).

230810f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

NINA TOKPAWHIEA, Appellant

No. 05

- 23

- 00810

- CV V.

ATHERTON FRISCO HOLDING LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007

- 02016

- 2023. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. Justices Molberg and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 27 th day of October 2023.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 815 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 815

 To provide that the Bureau of Labor Statistics may not change, during 
the 104th Congress, the method of calculating the consumer price index 
if it would result in higher taxes unless the change has been approved 
                                by law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1995

 Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. DeLauro, 
    Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Bryant of Texas, Mr. Klink, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida, Mr. Frost, Mr. Ward, Ms. Lowey, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 
    and, in addition, to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the Bureau of Labor Statistics may not change, during 
the 104th Congress, the method of calculating the consumer price index 
if it would result in higher taxes unless the change has been approved 
                                by law.

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

SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

    During the 104th Congress, the Secretary of Labor, acting through 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, may not change the method of 
calculating the consumer price index for purposes of section 1(f) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the method in effect on January 
1, 1995, to a method which will result in higher taxes for taxpayers 
under such section 1(f) unless the change has been approved by law. Any 
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report to give such 
approval shall be subject to clause 3(c) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1997 ENDED
JUNE 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000075608
<NAME> PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                       3,526,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               51,651,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,189,000
<INVENTORY>                                 54,601,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           124,339,000
<PP&E>                                     121,636,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              71,483,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             221,918,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,606,000
<BONDS>                                     76,622,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,220,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,703,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               221,918,000
<SALES>                                    151,067,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           151,067,000
<CGS>                                      102,124,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,558,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,202,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               267,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,649,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,183,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,377,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,806,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            (13,563,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,757,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)
        

</TABLE>
176 La. 848

#### CITY OF SHREVEPORT and State of Louisiana v. Wylie MALONE. In re Wylie Malone, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.

No. 32228.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1933.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1933.

T)imick & Hamilton and Milton Trichel, Jr., ■all of Shreveport, for relator.

Nash Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., and C. B. Prothro, Asst. City Atty., both of Shreveport, for appellees.

ODOM, Justice.

Defendant was prosecuted in the city court of Shreveport for having intoxicating liquors in his possession, in violation of a city ordinance. Upon conviction, he appealed to the district court, where the case was to be tried de novo. In the district court he filed a motion to quash, on the ground that the city ordinance under which he was prosecuted is practically identical with Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), known as the Hood Act, as amended by Act No. 57 of 1924, and that as the Hood Act has been repealed by Act No. 238' of 1932, said repeal operates as a repeal of the city ordinance on the same subject-mat.ter.

The motion to quash was overruled on the plea of the district attorney that Act No. 238 of 1932 is unconstitutional.

The case is before us on a writ of certio-rari and alternative writs of prohibition and mandamus, to stop the prosecution of the relator.

The only question, presented for consideration is whether Act No. 238 of 1932 is unconstitutional. In the case of State of Louisiana v. Herbert Watkins (La. Sup.) 147 So. 8, this day decided, it was held that' Act No. 238 of 1932 is unconstitutional, and therefore the said Hood Act has not been repealed.

Eor the reasons given in that case the writs issued in this case are recalled, the relief prayed for by the relator is denied, and this proceeding in the Supreme Court is dismissed.

ST. PAUL, J., absent on account of illness takes no part.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrea Joy JAMES, a/k/a Dee, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7685.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

*591Andrea Joy James, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Andrea Joy James seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### STATE v. McNUTT.

8 Div. 183.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellee.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is by the state, under section 3238 of the Code 1923, as amended by Gen. Acts 1927, p. 76.

The judge of the Morgan county court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and to hear and determine the matters presented by the petition therefor. Local Acts 1919, § 20, p. 198, amended by Local Acts 1931, §§ 20, 23, p. 144; Pugh v. Pugh, 21 Ala. App. 650, 111 So. 644.

The petitioner, appellee here, was indicted by the grand jury for the offense of murder in the first degree. This charge being prima facie not bailable, petition for habeas corpus was made to the judge of said lower court, and from an order granting petitioner bail, the state, as hereinabove mentioned, through the solicitor took this appeal.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether the decision and finding of the judge who heard the petition and entered the order is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We, of course, shall pretermit a discussion of the evidence for obvious reasons, and in reviewing the finding of the primary tribunal, the conclusion of the judge below on the facts will have regard to the weight which should be accorded by the revising court to the finding of the trial judge, for the reason that the witnesses appeared before him in person, thus affording him the opportunity of seeing and hearing them and of observing their deportment and demeanor on the stand; and the rule is that, unless it appears that his conclusion on the facts is contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence, such conclusion will not be disturbed. From a careful examination of the evidence here, we are not prepared to say that the conclusion reached by the judge below was erroneous, under the rule stated. •

It follows that the order admitting petitioner to bail is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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,  Dennis  Sunshine, Chief Executive Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly period ended
September  30,  2010  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: November 15, 2010
                                   /s/ Dennis Sunshine
                                   -------------------
                                   Dennis Sunshine
                                   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.56



AMENDMENT
TO THE
BAKER HUGHES COMPANY BENEFITS PLANS 




THIS AMENDMENT, effective as of January 1, 2020 (this “Amendment”), by BAKER HUGHES COMPANY (formerly known as Baker Hughes, a GE company), a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).


WHEREAS, the name of the Company  has changed to Baker Hughes Company; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Baker Hughes, a GE company 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Executive Officer Short Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Short Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Non-Employee Director Deferral Plan (the “Plans”) to reflect such name change; and


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plans are amended as follows. 


1.All references to “Baker Hughes, a GE company” in the plans are changed to “Baker Hughes Company”. 


		
	2.
	The names of the Baker Hughes, a GE company 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Executive Officer Short Term Incentive Compensation  Plan, the Baker Hughes, a GE company Short Term Incentive Compensation Plan, and the Baker Hughes, a GE company Non-Employee Director Deferral Plan are changed to the Baker Hughes Company 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Executive Officer Short Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Short Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Baker Hughes Company Non-Employee Director Deferral Plan, respectively.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Baker Hughes Company has executed this Amendment by its duly authorized corporate officer effective as of the day and year first written above.


 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]









BAKER HUGHES COMPANY


/s/ Manjit Gill
By:     Manjit Gill
Its:     Vice President, Total Rewards




The undersigned Lee Whitley, does hereby certify that he/she is the duly elected qualified acting Secretary of BAKER HUGHES COMPANY (the “Company”) and further certifies that the person whose signature appears above is a duly elected, qualified and acting officer of the Company with full power and authority to execute this Amendment on behalf of the Company and to take such other actions and execute such other documents as may be necessary to effectuate this Amendment.


/s/ Lee Whitley 
Secretary
BAKER HUGHES COMPANY
**Exhibit99.5**

** **

**ANNUALSUBSERVICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**GECOMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION FINANCE CORPORATION**

** **

**Re:   YAMAHA MOTOR MASTER TRUST**

** **

                Theundersigned, duly authorized representative of GE Commercial DistributionFinance Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (“*GECDF*”),as Servicer pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1994 (asamended and restated, the “*Servicing Agreement*”),by and among Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (“*Yamaha*”),and GECDF (f/k/a Deutsche Financial Services Corporation, which was f/k/a ITTCommercial Finance Corp.), does hereby certify to the best of his or herknowledge after reasonable investigation that:

 

1.                             GECDF is, as of the date hereof,the Servicer (“the Servicer”) under the Servicing Agreement as that term isdefined in the Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                             The undersigned is dulyauthorized pursuant to the Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this certificateto Yamaha.

3.                             Thiscertificate is delivered pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Servicing Agreement.

 

4.                             A review of the activities ofthe Servicer during the period from April 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004,and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement was conducted under mysupervision.

 

5.                             Based on such review, to thebest of my knowledge (a) the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fullyperformed all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout suchperiod and (b) no event which, with the giving of notice or passage of time orboth, would constitute a Servicer Default has occurred.

 

*[Documentcontinues with signature page.]*

 

 

----

 

                                INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Annual Subservicer’sCertificate as of February 28, 2005.

 

 
| GE COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION

FINANCE CORPORATION |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| as Servicer                                     |   |
|                                            |   |
|                                            |   |
|                                            |   |
|                                            |   |
| By:                                             | /S/ |
| Name: Paul Puma                                 |
| Title:  Sr. Vice President                 |
|                                                 |  |  |

 

 

 

----
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00506

- CV

N EWSTREAM R OANOKE 6.125, LLC

, Appellant

V

.

J ONELL S HORE

, Y OUNG O K K IM

, AND

S OON B OON C HANGE , Appellees §

§

§

§ On A ppeal from the 431st District Court

of Denton County ( 22

- 5855

- 431 )

Au gust 31 , 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s orde r

. It is ordered that the trial court ’ s order is

affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Newstream Roanoke 6.125, LLC shall bear

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By / s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
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, Thomas L.
Millner, certify that this annual report on Form 10-K of Remington Arms
Company, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this
annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant. Date: April
  2, 2007

/s/ Thomas
  L. MillnerThomas L.
  MillnerPresident
  and Chief Executive Officer