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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         723,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,323,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,485,847
<INVENTORY>                                 38,431,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,510,565
<PP&E>                                       6,763,475
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,546,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,059,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       55,044,613
<BONDS>                                        161,870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,016
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,801,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,059,901
<SALES>                                     24,897,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,897,967
<CGS>                                       17,919,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,723,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,085,398
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             940,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,770,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,770,406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,770,406)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)


</TABLE>
Lexter Kossie#700661

William McConnell Unit

3001 South Emily Drive

Beeville, Texas 78102

April 26, 2015

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

RE: WR NOs. 10,978-01 thru 10,978-16

Tr.Ct.NOs. 679887-A thru 679887-K

185th District Court - Harris County

i0^%-0^07,03,0^^^^

•>r»«

W 29 2015

Dear Clerk:

Recently I have been cited for abuse of the writ. In

order for me to show that the claims I intend to raise in my

subsequent writ are not barred by Sec 4 I am requesting the

docket sheet of all the writs mentioned above with a list of

all of the claims presented in each of those application. With

out a list of all of the claims I cannot show that the claims

I intend to raise have not been raised before in those prior

applications.

Thank you for any consideration given in this matter.

Sincerely,

cc:File

u^^'fna^--^

Lext'li? Kennon Kossie
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

            Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of
section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an
officer of Manchester Technologies, Inc. ("Manchester"), that, to his knowledge,
the Quarterly Report of Manchester on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of Manchester. This written statement is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed
original of this statement has been provided to Manchester and will be retained
by Manchester and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date:   December 13, 2004       /S/   Barry R. Steinberg
                               ----------------------------
                               Barry R. Steinberg
                               President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:   December 13, 2004       /S/      Elan Yaish
                                -------------------------------------------
                               Elan Yaish
                               Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer
                               and Principal Accounting Officer
Corrected October 5, 2015+

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN ANTHONY HENRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PRISON MEDICAL PROVIDERS OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION AND

REHABILITATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-16516

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00201-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015**

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Anthony Henry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

FILED

SEP 03 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** + The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Henry failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent by delaying his referral to an ear, nose and throat specialist. 

See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or

she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence

and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan, 296

F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (where the prisoner is alleging that delay of medical

treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led

to further injury).

AFFIRMED. 

2 14-16516
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

State of New Hampshire

V.

ExxonMobil Corporation, et al.

0 R D E R

Civil No. 07-cv-80

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case shall be

referred to the District of Rhode Island; sitting by designation.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an "emergency" with respect to the referred case as that term is

used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the assignment

of a magistrate judge from the designated district to perform the

duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

May 2, 2007

cc: Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Jennifer J. Patterson, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00080-WES Document 9 Filed 05/07/07 Page 1 of 2
Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge David L. Martin

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him/her by the district judge to whom this

case is assigned.

I.Q.CJ

Chief Jud(Je, Assignee District

cc: Jennifer J. Patterson, Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00080-WES Document 9 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report of Datameg Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James Murphy, Chairman and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

| By:    |   | /s/ JAMES MURPHY        |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | James Murphy            |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | March 31, 2007          |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         237,812
<SECURITIES>                                    91,626
<RECEIVABLES>                                  449,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (27,672)
<INVENTORY>                                    288,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,135,501
<PP&E>                                       2,930,579
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,312,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,304,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          510,243
<BONDS>                                        719,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       798,967
<OTHER-SE>                                     923,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,304,246
<SALES>                                      2,654,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,654,361
<CGS>                                        1,929,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,929,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                436,786
<INCOME-TAX>                                   161,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            275,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   275,374
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.77


</TABLE>
1 McNulty also previously waived his right to indictment by

the grand jury but he does not seek to have my order accepting

his waiver vacated.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas McNulty

v. Case No. 08-cv-52-PB

United States Of America

O R D E R

On May 23, 2008 I vacated Thomas McNulty’s guilty plea and

sentence because I determined that his attorney provided him with

ineffective assistance of counsel.1 McNulty argues that in

addition to this relief, I should also require the government to

reinstate a prior plea offer for an agreed-upon five-year prison

sentence that McNulty claims he rejected because of his counsel’s

deficient advice. The government objects. 

The specific relief McNulty seeks is unusual and there is no

binding precedent on point. Before I compel the government to

re-offer a plea agreement that it no longer believes is

appropriate, I must determine whether I would be willing to

accept the proposed plea agreement. It would be an exercise in

Case 1:08-cv-00052-PB Document 15 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2
-2-

futility to require the government to re-offer a plea agreement

that I later determine is unacceptable. Accordingly, I direct

the clerk to schedule a further hearing to give the defendant the

opportunity to demonstrate that I should accept the plea

agreement that he asks me to compel the government to re-offer. 

If I determine that the proposed plea agreement is acceptable, I

will then determine whether I have the power to compel the

government to re-offer the agreement.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

July 14, 2008

cc: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, AUSA

 Cathy J. Green, Esq.

 Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Esq.

 Victoria B. Eiger, Esq.

 United States Probation

 United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cv-00052-PB Document 15 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2
#### Jack SALMON, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8176.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 25, 1954.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1954.

Jackson, Mayer & Kennedy, Shreveport, for appellants.

Gravel & Downs, Alexandria, for inter-venor.

Hobbs & Yeates, Minden, for appellee.

GLADNEY, Judge.

Jack Salmon, plaintiff and appellee herein suffered personal injuries in the accident of December 11, 1951,- on U. S. Highway 80 involving a truck in which he was a passenger. Our findings on the issues of fact and law given in Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., 73 So.2d 583, are equally applicable to the instant case and our decision therein is controlling here.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment from which appealed be and the same is hereby annulled, set aside and reversed and plaintiff’s action dismissed. It is further ordered that the judgment in favor of the intervenor is annulled, set aside and reversed and intervenor’s claim is denied. Costs to be prorated equally between plaintiffs.

AYRES, J., dissents, for the reason that he is of the opinion that the driver of defendant’s truck was guilty of negligence constituting a proximate cause of the accident
EXHIBIT
10.9





AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE TO


THE
DRESS BARN, INC.


EXECUTIVE
162(m) BONUS PLAN





WHEREAS, The Dress Barn, Inc.
(the “Company”)
sponsors The Dress Barn, Inc. Executive 162(m) Bonus Plan (the “Plan”);





WHEREAS, pursuant to Section
10 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the
Plan at any time, subject, in certain cases, to shareholder approval;
and





WHEREAS, the Board desires to
amend the Plan to provide that, in addition to the Board, the Compensation
Committee of the Board (the “Compensation
Committee”) has the authority to (i) determine the performance period
under the Plan, and (ii) amend the Plan at any time, subject, in certain cases,
to shareholder approval.




NOW, THEREFORE, effective as
of August 31, 2009, the Plan is amended as follows:





1.  Section
2(m) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:





“(m)  
“Performance Period” - shall mean a period of one (1) year, fiscal or calendar,
or less, as determined by the Board or the Committee.”





2.  The
first sentence of Section 10 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows:





“The
Board (or a duly authorized committee thereof) or the Committee may, in its sole
and absolute discretion, amend, suspend or terminate the Plan or adopt a new
plan in place of this Plan at any time; provided, that no such amendment shall,
without the prior approval of the shareholders of the Company entitled to vote
thereon in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut to the extent
required under Code Section 162(m):  (i) materially alter the
Performance Goals as set forth in Section 6.2; (ii) increase the maximum
amount set forth in Section 6.5; (iii) change the class of eligible
employees set forth in Section 4(a); or (iv) implement any change to a
provision of the Plan requiring shareholder approval in order for the Plan to
continue to comply with the requirements of Code Section
162(m).”








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment has been adopted as of August 31, 2009.





THE
      DRESS BARN, INC.By:
      /s/ Gene WexlerGene
      WexlerSVP,
      General Counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Glenn L. Beane

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00236-JL

Alan F. Beane

 O R D E R

The defendant’s motion to amend answer to amended complaint

(document no. 31) is granted. No deadline to amend pleadings has

yet been established due to the filing of dispositive motions. 

The objection does not allege prejudice, futility (no claim of

res judicata or collateral estoppel is asserted), lack of

diligence, or fraud. The court finds no undue delay, bad faith,

dilatory motive, inexcusable repetitious failure to cure

deficiencies in previous amendments, undue prejudice, futility,

fraud, or frivolity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Foman V. Davis, 371

U.S 178, 182 (1962); In re Rauh, 119 F. 3d 46,52 (1st. Cir.

1997); Executive Leasing Corp. v. Banco Popular, 48 F. 3d 66,71

(1st. Cir. 1995).

Further, counsel shall confer with each other and the Deputy

Clerk to schedule the Preliminary Pretrial Conference. The

conference will be scheduled on a date that will allow counsel to

fully comply with FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule 26.1.

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 39 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 19, 2009

cc: W. E. Whittington, Esq.

William S. Gannon, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 39 Filed 03/19/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff 

v. Case No. 08-cr-135-01-SM 

Normand Forand, 

Defendant 

O R D E R 

Defendant Forand’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no. 

41). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of January 2010. Defendant 

Forand shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than December 24, 

2009. 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 the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the 

circumstances. 

Case 1:08-cr-00135-SM Document 42 Filed 12/07/09 Page 1 of 2
Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. 

Jury selection will take place on January 20, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED. 

December 7, 2009 

cc: James Dennehy, Esq. 

Michael Zaino, SAUSA 

U.S. Marshal 

U.S. Probation 

teven J. McAuliffe 

Chief Judge 

2 

Case 1:08-cr-00135-SM Document 42 Filed 12/07/09 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 21.1**
126

 
**Exhibit 21.1****Subsidiaries of the Registrant****The following table sets forth the subsidiaries of First Charter Corporation at December 31, 2007.**   Subsidiary State of IncorporationFirst Charter Bank North CarolinaFirstCharter Insurance Services, Inc.(1) North CarolinaFirstCharter Leasing and Investments,Inc. (2) North CarolinaFirstCharter of Virginia Realty Investments, Inc.(3) VirginiaFirstCharter Realty Investments, Inc.(4) DelawareFirstCharter Real Estate Holdings, LLC(5) North CarolinaFCB RealEstate, Inc. (5) North CarolinaLincolnCenter at Mallard Creek, LLC(6) North Carolina (1) *Owned by First Charter Bank* (2) *Primarily owned by First Charter Bank* (3) *Owned by First Charter Leasing and Investments, Inc.* (4) *Primarily owned by First Charter of Virginia RealtyInvestments, Inc.* (5) *Primarily owned by First Charter Realty Investments,Inc.* (6) *51 percent owned by First Charter Bank*
127
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Blackmer

v. Case No. 08-cv-292-SM

Dwayne Sweat, et al. 

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated October 16, 2008, for the

reasons set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed, and his motions

for injunctive relief (document no. 9) and for reconsideration of the court’s order

denying motion to stay case (document no. 8) are denied.

SO ORDERED.

December 3, 2008 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Paul Blackmer, pro se 

Case 1:08-cv-00292-SM Document 14 Filed 12/03/08 Page 1 of 1
1)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended March 31, 2011 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March
31, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 /s/ MICHAEL A. DOYLEMichael A. DoyleDated: May 10, 2011
    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0001023877
<NAME>                                   Goung Hei Investment Co., Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1992
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1992
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1992
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       23
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 0
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                                            6
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         23
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        21
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (21)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (21)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (21)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0





</TABLE>