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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001             MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000             AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         174,946                 258,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,559                 233,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                 150,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,504                 670,323
<PP&E>                                         196,111               1,310,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,164                  17,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,121,917               3,791,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,629,005               2,558,208
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,122,188                 269,325
<COMMON>                                     3,522,200               3,488,665
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,121,917               3,791,898
<SALES>                                        229,807                 295,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,180,322              10,818,265
<CGS>                                          161,714                 326,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,112,229              10,848,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               878,899               1,389,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             214,274                 100,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,045,244)             (1,537,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,400                   2,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,047,644)             (1,540,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,047,644)             (1,540,501)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.30)                  (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randy Campney

v. Civil No. 06-cv-297-JD

Superintendent, Bare Hill

Correctional Facility

Procedural Order

Randy Campney, proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his conviction in Grafton County Superior

Court on charges of burglary and theft by unauthorized taking. 

The Superintendent of the Bare Hill Correctional Facility, where

Campney is incarcerated, filed a motion for summary judgment,

which was denied without prejudice to allow time for Campney to

complete pending state court proceedings on his claims. After

receiving notice that the state court proceedings were resolved,

the court issued an order that the case could proceed and

directed the Superintendent to file a motion for summary judgment

on or before October 9, 2009.

On October 9, 2009, the Superintendent filed “Respondent’s

Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Summary

Judgment” but failed to file a motion for summary judgment. Doc.

no. 79. Because the Superintendent’s previous motion for summary

judgment was denied, no motion was pending that could be

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 80 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 3
2

supplemented. To the extent the Superintendent may rely on

references to his prior motion and memorandum, those filings are

no longer pending and will not be considered for purposes of a

new motion for summary judgment. Campney has not filed a

response to the “Supplemental Memorandum,” which may be because

he did not recognize the “Supplemental Memorandum” as a motion.

Under the local rules of this district, “[a]ll motions must

contain the word ‘motion’ in the title.” LR 7.1(a)(1). The

Superintendent’s “Supplemental Memorandum” does not comply with

the local rule. To avoid confusion, the Superintendent shall

file a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a properly

supported memorandum, with its supporting exhibits, that contains

all of the arguments and appropriate evidentiary support which

the Superintendent offers for summary judgment without reference

to or reliance on prior filings. Campney shall file his response

to the motion within thirty days of the date the motion is filed.

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 80 Filed 12/14/09 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Superintendent shall file a

motion for summary judgment, with an accompanying memorandum and

evidentiary support, on or before December 22, 2009. Campney

shall file his response within thirty days from the date the

motion is filed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 14, 2009

cc: Randy S. Campney, Sr., pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esquire

Susan P. McGinnis, Esquire

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 80 Filed 12/14/09 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Cumminn s

v. Civil No. 06-cv-147-JD

NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner, et at.

ORDE R

On August 1, 2006, an Endorsed Order was issued by Magistrate Judge James R . Muirhead

ordering the plaintiff to file an updated custodial certificate within 15 days . This order was mailed

to Mr. Cummings at his last known address, the New Hampshire State Prison. On August 4, 2006,

this order was returned to the U. S . District Court. A Clerk's Office employee contacted the Prison

to see if Mr. Cummings was still incarcerated and was notified that he was paroled on July 20,2006.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83 .6(e), a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the clerk's

office of any change of address. In that Mr. Cummings has not kept the court apprised of his current

address, this case is dismissed without prejudice .

SO ORDERED.

August 9, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Michael Cummings, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00147-JD Document 10 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ECHELON INTERNATIONAL FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,000
<SECURITIES>                                    46,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,100
<PP&E>                                         150,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 461,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,000
<BONDS>                                         48,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   461,800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (700)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (800)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Linens 'n Things, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Norman
Axelrod, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William T. Giles, as
Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section)
1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his 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.




    /s/ Norman Axelrod
-----------------------------
Name:    Norman Axelrod
Title:   Chairman and Chief
         Executive Officer
Date:    May 7, 2004



    /s/ William T. Giles
-----------------------------
Name:    William T. Giles
Title:   Executive Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer
Date:    May 7, 2004


                                       24
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

OF 

OCH-ZIFF HOLDING CORPORATION 

 
  

Pursuant to Section 242 of the General 

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware 
  

 
 August 30,
2019 
 Och-Ziff Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the
“Corporation”), does hereby certify as follows: 
 FIRST: Article FIRST of the Corporation’s Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as set forth below: 
 FIRST: The name of the corporation is
Sculptor Capital Holding Corporation (hereinafter, the “Corporation”). 
 SECOND: The foregoing amendment was duly adopted
in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 
 * * * * 

This Certificate of Amendment shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on September 12, 2019. 

[Signature page follows.] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be duly executed in its
corporate name as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	OCH-ZIFF HOLDING CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Wayne Cohen

	Name:	 	Wayne Cohen
	Title:	 	President and Chief Operating Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Vincent Chaney

Criminal No . 06-cr-105-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no .

14) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U .S .C . § 3131 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : October 9, 200 7

cc : Jessica Brown, Esq .

William Morse, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 16 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended February 28, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Eric Blachno, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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 11, 2005

/s/ Eric Blachno
Erich Blachno
Chief Financial Officer
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
                                 Estimated volume                 Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      ______________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
1991......    |         105      12      25      36       32      .319      .037      .078     .103      .091
1992......    |          82      14      20      29       18      .237      .039      .062     .083      .050
1993......    |          54       7      16       5       26      .155      .020      .049     .014      .069
1994......    |          69      10      11      15       33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2      14      13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16      27      24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19      19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15      24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37      35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17      34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53     140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |        n.a.      40      50      58     n.a.      n.a.      .085      .114     .124      n.a.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-144-01-SM

Jason White

O R D E R

Defendant White’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 14). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2007 trial

period. Defendant White shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

November 2, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: December 15, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 9, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 15 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 24, 2006

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 15 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2
---

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41993
          54
          7
          16
          5
          26
          .155
          .020
          .049
          .014
          .0691994
          69
          10
          11
          15
          33
          .187
          .026
          .032
          .037
          .0821995
          51
          -2
          14
          13
          25
          .131
          -.004
          .039
          .032
          .0611996
          95
          16
          27
          24
          30
          .240
          .039
          .070
          .058
          .0711997
          93
          6
          19
          19
          50
          .230
          .014
          .049
          .045
          .1121998
          87
          4
          15
          24
          45
          .198
          .008
          .036
          .051
          .0951999
          126
          18
          37
          35
          36
          .280
          .040
          .086
          .078
          .0802000
          108
          11
          17
          34
          45
          .259
          .027
          .041
          .075
          .0982001
          308
          67
          53
          140
          48
          .656
          .142
          .118
          .294
          .1012002
          221
          40
          50
          58
          73
          .471
          .085
          .114
          .124
          .1572003
          175
          34
          35
          48
          58
          .382
          .074
          .080
          .108
          .1282004
          n.a.
          28
          17
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .062
          .039
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: September 30, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary Dolan

v. Civil No. 05-cv-043-JD

Sungard Securities Finance, LLC, et al.

O R D E R

 Pro se plaintiff moves to compel production of certain

documents. After review of the request and responses the court

adopts defendants’ objection on each item and rules as follows: 

Moot: Nos. 19, 37, 49;

Moot in part and otherwise irrelevant, overly broad

and/or immaterial: Nos. 31, 41 and

Denied as overly broad, immaterial or irrelevant: 

Nos. 29, 30, 34, 36, 38, 39, 46 and 58. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 9, 2007

cc: William E. Hannum, III, Esq.

 Shannon M. Lynch, Esq.

 Dyana C. Tull, Esq.

 Gary Dolan, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00043-JD Document 50 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 1
#### GEDDES *&*MOSS UNDERTAKING & EMBALMING CO., Limited, v. FIRST NAT. LIFE INS. CO., Inc.

No. 14804.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 4, 1935.

Chas. J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Normann & McMahon and Harold M. Rouehell, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit on a policy of life insurance. Mary Thomas, the beneficiary named in the policy, has assigned her rights thereunder to the Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Company, Limited, and that corporation appears as plaintiff. Defendant life insurance company filed a plea of prescription, which was sustained in the district court, and, from a judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiff has appealed.

The plea of prescription is based on a stipulation said to be contained in the policy and which is alleged to read, in part, as follows:

“That no suit shall be brought against defendant after two years from the time when the right of action shall accrue,” etc.

When the matter was called for argument before us, counsel for plaintiff called attention to the fact that the policy had not been offered in evidence and he contended that, in the absence of the policy and in the absence of an agreement as to what it contained, there is no evidence before us to show that it contained the provision which forms the basis of the plea of prescription.

Counsel for defendant explains the absence of the policy by stating that it is filed ih another suit and that it was his belief that there was an understanding with counsel.for plaintiff as to the contents of the policy, and that the policy itself need not be filed.

There is evidently a misunderstanding as to what occurred in the court below, and, in the absence of a written agreement of counsel, we are powerless to hold that there was an agreement making unnecessary the production of the policy. 1

In the absence of the policy and in the absence of such an agreement and in the absence of other legal evidence as to the contents of the policy, there is before us no proof that the said policy contained the provision relied upon, and we, therefore, cannot affirm the judgment dismissing the suit on the plea of prescription, but feel that the matter should be remanded to the district court for such legal evidence as may be available to show the contents and terms of the policy in question.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and .decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that this matter be remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed and according to .law.

Remanded.