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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          43,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  230,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,301
<INVENTORY>                                    198,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               527,155
<PP&E>                                       6,005,987
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,567,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,224,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          384,937
<BONDS>                                      1,869,877
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,001,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,224,819
<SALES>                                      1,266,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,297,356
<CGS>                                          729,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  751,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,738
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,428
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
        


</TABLE>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED 

Amendment No. 1 to 

2013 Stock Incentive Plan 

Pursuant to Section 11(d) of the 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of MicroStrategy Incorporated (the
“Company”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 Section 4(a)(1) of the Plan is amended to read in its
entirety as follows: 
 “(1) Authorized Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 9, Awards may be made under
the Plan for up to 1,500,000 shares of class A common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”), any or all of which Awards may be in the form of Incentive Stock Options (as defined in
Section 5(b)). Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 

This Amendment shall become effective on the date it is adopted by the Board; provided that, to the extent required, no Award shall be made
pursuant to the Plan (other than an Award that would have been authorized under the Plan as in effect prior to this Amendment) before stockholder approval of this Amendment, unless the Award is conditioned upon stockholder approval of this Amendment
and the Award provides that (1) it will terminate or be forfeited if stockholder approval of the Amendment is not obtained within 12 months from the date of the grant of such Award and (2) it may not be exercised or settled (or otherwise
result in the issuance of Common Stock) prior to such stockholder approval. 
 Adopted by the Board of Directors on April 25, 2014 

Approved by the Company’s stockholders 

on             , 20
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2305

___________________________

Benjamin E. Schreiber

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nick Ludwick; Stephen Sparks

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

Submitted: February 15, 2019

 Filed: March 1, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Benjamin Schreiber brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

that Iowa State Penitentiary officials and University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics

providers violated his rights by inadequately treating a urinary condition and failing
to comply with his healthcare directives. The district court dismissed the hospital 1

defendants in a preservice order and granted summary judgment dismissing the prison

officials for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Schreiber appeals. After

careful de novo review of the record, we affirm.

We agree with the district court that Schreiber’s claims against the prison

officials must be dismissed for failure to exhaust applicable prison remedies. See 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012). Schreiber

argues that the ineffective assistance of his appointed counsel prevented him from

submitting all his attempts to grieve his claims. However, there is no statutory or

constitutional right to effective assistance of appointed counsel in a civil case. See,

e.g., Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 2002). 

Schreiber argues the district court erred in dismissing his claims against the

hospital defendants because he was entitled to discovery to determine whether they

violated his “do not resuscitate” rights under Iowa Code Ann. §§ 144A.2(13),

144A.3(1), and 144B.9(2). However, Schreiber’s §1983 complaint did not allege any

state law claims under the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction. We do not

consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d

1222, 1226 (8th Cir. 2013). As Schreiber does not meaningfully argue any preserved

federal claim against the hospital defendants, we affirm their dismissal. See Ahlberg

v. Chrylser Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not argued on appeal are

waived); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) preservice dismissal).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.

-2-
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 Quarterly Report of Commercial Property Corporation
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending aPRIL 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), we, David C. Merrell, President and Kristine M. Rogers,
Secretary/Treasurer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Dated: 6/14/2005                          /s/David C. Merrell
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          David C. Merrell
                                          President and Director


Dated: 6/14/2005                          /s/Kristine M. Rogers
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          Kristine M. Rogers
                                          Secretary and Treasurer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6331]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Museums of Berlin and the Legacy of James Simon”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California, from on or about October 18, 2008, until on or about January 18, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The                               ( print page 50395)                            address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                    

Dated: August 18, 2008.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-19769 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EXHIBIT
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 on Form 10-KSB/A of Surfect Holdings, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony
      M. Maffia, Jr., 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, to my knowledge:




|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:
      May 10, 2007


/s/ Anthony
              M. Maffia, Jr.Anthony
              M. Maffia, Jr.Chief
              Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., for the Purpose of Opening Morgan Avenue from Stagg Street to Meeker Avenue, in the Eighteenth Ward of the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York. Benjamin Boley, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01041-CR

MICAL DANTRAL FORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-72750-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121041F.U05
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6361 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6361

To require the commanding general of the District of Columbia National 
              Guard to reside in the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2022

                Ms. Norton introduced the following bill

                            January 10, 2022

            Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the commanding general of the District of Columbia National 
              Guard to reside in the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia National Guard 
Commanding General Residency Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA NATIONAL GUARD RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA.

    (a) Requirement.--Section 7 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
for the organization of the militia of the District of Columbia, and 
for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1889 (sec. 49-301, D.C. 
Official Code), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(d) The Commanding General of the District of Columbia National 
Guard shall reside in the District of Columbia.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the day that is one year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11

                   SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (In thousands, except per share data)


                                 QUARTER ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                  May 1,   May 3,     May 1,   May 3,
                                 2004      2003      2004      2003
                                --------  --------  --------  --------
NET EARNINGS
  Basic net earnings           $  13,519 $  10,541  $ 21,225  $ 16,699
  Add:  Interest on
   Convertible Securities,
   net of tax                      1,569       516       995         -
                                --------  --------  --------  --------
  Diluted net earnings         $  15,088 $  11,057  $ 22,220  $ 16,699
                                ========  ========  ========  ========
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
 OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common
   shares outstanding             32,061    29,235    30,719    29,242
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed conversion of
   Convertible Subordinated
   Debentures                      4,578     1,637     1,637         -
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed exercise of options       415       230       412       242
                                --------  --------  --------  --------
  Diluted weighted average
   shares outstanding             37,054    31,102    32,768    29,484
                                ========  ========  ========  ========


NET EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Basic                         $    .42  $    .36  $    .69  $    .57
                                ========  ========  ========  ========
  Diluted                       $    .41  $    .36  $    .68  $    .57
                                ========  ========  ========  ========
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Oswaldo Francis POZO, Appellant.

No. 01-2567.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 25, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Oswaldo Francis Pozo appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 upon revocation of his supervised release. Pozo waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and stipulated to violating conditions of his supervised release. Thereafter, the court revoked Pozo’s supervised release and sentenced him to 7 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release.

On appeal, Pozo argues the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by imposing a revocation sentence that included both a term of imprisonment and a term of supervised release, because 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), which authorizes supervised release upon revocation of supervised release, was not in effect at the time Pozo’s original offense was committed. This argument is foreclosed, however, by *Johnson v. United States,*529 U.S. 694, 702, 713, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (although § 3583(h) does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before September 13, 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) already allows district courts to impose additional term of supervised release following reimprisonment; as § 3583(h) does not apply retroactively, ex post facto question does not arise). We note that the total of the terms of imprisonment and supervised release imposed upon revocation of Pozo’s supervised release (31 months) does not exceed his original 60-month supervised-release term. *See United States v. St. John,*92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir.1996) (maximum period of time defendant’s freedom can be restrained upon revocation of supervised release is capped by original supervised-release term).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Michael A. ZAMANI, et al., Defendants-cross-claimants—Appellants, v. Phillip CARNES, et al., Plaintiffs-cross-defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-15956.

D.C. No. CV-00-20084-RMW(RS).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 13, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before KOZINSKI, GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Because the facts are familiar to the parties involved, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

1. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Carneses1 on the claim for negligent misrepresentation. The Zamanis have failed to demonstrate that the Carneses made a “positive assertion” that there was no asbestos in the building. *See Wilson v. Century 21 Great*W. *Realty,*15 CalApp. 4th 298, 306, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 (1993). “An ‘implied’ assertion or representation is not enough.” *Id.*

In *Wilson,*the California Court of Appeal squarely held that when a seller checks the “no” box on a real estate disclosure form when answering “are you aware” questions, the seller has not made a positive assertion about the actual existence of the condition. *Id.*at 306-07, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 779. The fact that Gene Carnes answered “UNK” and “N/A,” as well as “no,” in various places on the disclosure form does not lead to a different conclusion than that in *Wilson.*

2. We also affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Zamanis point to the provision of the purchase agreement that states that “Buyer requests of Seller to Disclose any information known to him adverse or friendly.” This phrase does not obligate the seller in any way — it is simply a request from the buyer. Even if it did obligate the seller to disclose any information, the information would have to be “known” to the seller. Because the Zamanis have presented no evidence that the Carneses knew about the asbestos, there is no breach of the contract.

The Zamanis also contend that the Carneses breached the contract by violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This argument fails because the Zamanis have not shown that the Carneses either knew about the asbestos or negligently misrepresented that they knew there was no asbestos.

3. Finally, we affirm the district court’s grant of declaratory relief to the Carneses. Given the “As Is” clause, the Carneses are *221not liable for the cost of asbestos remediation on the property. *See Loughrin v. Superior Court,*15 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. In referring to the Carneses we include the other appellees who do not share the same last name as the Carneses.