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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ZAPWORLD.COM FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS. AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS
</LEGEND>


<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           $2,199
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       768
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (53)
<INVENTORY>                                       1,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4,908
<PP&E>                                              825
<DEPRECIATION>                                      436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,054
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         12,270
<OTHER-SE>                                       (6,078)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6,917
<SALES>                                           4,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4,257
<CGS>                                             2,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (53)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (5)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (960)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (960)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.19)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4
                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
                                       of
                                KEITH L. LAMPERT
                                      with
                              CONCORD CAMERA CORP.


         AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of March 2, 2004, to Terms of Employment
effective as of November 11, 2002 (the "Agreement") by and between CONCORD
CAMERA CORP. (the "Company") and KEITH L. LAMPERT (the "employee").

         FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       Section 7(d) of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced
in its entirety with the following:

         "(d)     reimburse the employee for closing costs actually incurred by
                  him in connection with his purchase of a residence in South
                  Florida, provided the closing occurs no later than June 15,
                  2004; and"

         2.       Except as hereby amended, the Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 1
as of the date first above written.

EXECUTIVE:                                  CONCORD CAMERA CORP.



 /s/ Keith L. Lampert                          By:   /s/  Richard M. Finkbeiner
-----------------------------------               -----------------------------
Keith L. Lampert                                  Richard M. Finkbeiner
                                                  Senior Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


Date:      3/20/04                                Date:        4/7/04
     -------------------------------                   ------------------------



                                       1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the consolidated
financial statements of Amscan Holdings, Inc. as of March 31, 2000 and for the
quarter then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001024729
<NAME>                          Amscan Holdings, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (5,997)
<INVENTORY>                                     61,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,396
<PP&E>                                         107,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (45,405)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,271
<BONDS>                                        264,841
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (84,949)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,681
<SALES>                                         77,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,377
<CGS>                                           47,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   467
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,180
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,709
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,709
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.6**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDCHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ON RECONCILIATION OF CANADIAN GAAP TO UNITED STATES GAAP**

To the Board of Directors and Shareholdersof BCE Inc. 

We have audited the consolidated financialstatements of BCE Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2010and 2009 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,2010, and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December31, 2010, and have issued our reports thereon dated March 10, 2011; suchconsolidated financial statements and reports are contained in Exhibit 99.2 andExhibit 99.3 of Form 40-F. Our audits also included the reconciliation fromCanadian GAAP to United States GAAP of the Company contained in Exhibit 99.5 ofForm 40-F. This reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP is theresponsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express anopinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such reconciliation from CanadianGAAP to United States GAAP, when considered in relation to the basicconsolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in allmaterial respects, the information set forth therein. 

As disclosed in note (f) to thereconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP, the Company changed itsmethod of accounting for business combinations and non-controlling interestseffective January 1, 2009.

*(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP**1***Independent Registered CharteredAccountants 

Montréal, Canada March 10, 2011 

______________________________ 1 Chartered accountant auditor permit no 9335
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS

KATHRYN KIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Defendant.

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order

and to Extend the Deadline for Filing Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. # 30, filed 5/15/2012] (the “Motion for Extension”), which is GRANTED as

specified.

The plaintiff asserts that it cannot respond to the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment until after certain depositions; those depositions have not yet been scheduled; and that

“several scheduling conflicts . . . make it difficult to schedule depositions until later this

summer,” necessitating an extension of the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion deadline.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [Doc. # 30] is GRANTED to the

following extent:

(1) The plaintiff shall respond to Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. # 26] on or before August 31, 2012;

(2) The discovery cut-off is extended to and including August 31, 2012. All written

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 31 Filed 05/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

discovery must be served so that responses are due on or before the discovery cut-off; and

(3) The dispositive motion deadline is extended to and including August 31, 2012.

Dated May 17, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 31 Filed 05/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to section 3.02 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pizza Inn, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: September 21, 2007
    By:
    /s/  Charles R. MorrisonInterim President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) 70
<PAGE>   1






                                                                    EXHIBIT 23a

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 33-61375) pertaining to the Stockholders' Investment Program and
Form S-8 Nos. 33-37884, 33-44528, 33-44930 and 333-68521 pertaining to the
Equity Option Plan, the Outside Directors' Formula Stock Option Plan, and the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Schawk, Inc. of our report dated February 15,
1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Schawk, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

Chicago, Illinois                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP
February 15, 1999




                                     
















                                       48
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

2

“[#27]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00297-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ERIC SHAWN COPELAND,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

By 3:30 p.m. today, September 29, 2011, the government shall file a response to

Defendant’s Motion To Continue and Reset Status Conference and Trial (Related

To Docs. #25 and #26) [#27]2

 filed September 28, 2011.

Dated: September 29, 2011

Case 1:11-cr-00297-REB Document 28 Filed 09/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE MICHAEL E. HEGARTY

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00295-MEH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

Sharon Jones,

Defendant.

 

ORDER EXONERATING BOND

This criminal action has proceeded to sentencing and a final judgment and conviction,

and the defendant was sentenced to probation. As a result, all the conditions of an appearance

bond imposed by the court as a pretrial matter to secure the defendant’s release, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3142(c), have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the bond in this case is hereby exonerated and the surety or sureties, if

applicable, are released. It is further 

ORDERED that the bail funds or property deposited into the registry of the court shall

hereby be released by the clerk of the court, or a designated deputy, to the surety or the

defendant. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 4th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael J . Watanabe

By: 

 United States Magistrate Judge

 DISTRICT OF COLORADO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Aarons, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 487]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered October 4, 2000, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree (three counts), kidnapping in the second degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (four counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the convictions of kidnapping in the second degree, and the convictions of burglary in the first degree under counts 15, 16 and 17 of the indictment, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The People correctly concede that kidnapping in the second degree is a lesser-included offense of kidnapping in the first degree and that the defendant’s convictions of those offenses must be vacated *(see*CPL 1.20 [37]; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 63).

The defendant’s contention that the counts charging him with burglary in the first degree are multiplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Cruz,*96 NY2d 857). Nevertheless, in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of burglary in the first degree under counts 15, 16 and 17 of the indictment. An indictment is multiplicitous when two or more counts charge the same crime *(see People v Senisi,*196 AD2d 376). Counts 14 through 17 in the indictment charged the defendant with unlawfully entering and remaining in the same dwelling and, in the course thereof, displaying a weapon *(see*Penal Law § 140.30 [4]). Although the People contend that four separate *509burglary counts were permissible because the weapon was displayed to four individuals who lived in the dwelling, there was only one unlawful entry. Thus, the defendant could be convicted of only one count under Penal Law § 140.30 (4) *(see People v Griswold,*174 AD2d 1038; *People v Martinez,*126 AD2d 942).

The defendant’s contentions regarding prosecutorial misconduct are in large part unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, do not warrant reversal *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Russo,*201 AD2d 512, 513, *affd*85 NY2d 872). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Magiocco, Appellant, *v.*United States Aluminum Company.

June 29, 1938:

Argued April 19, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldbige, Stadtfeld, Parker, and Rhodes, JJ.

*T. Robert Brennan,*for appellant.

*R. E. Best,*of *Smith, Best & Horn,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The claimant in this case was injured on July 17, 1930, while in the course of his employment. A compensation agreement was entered into for total disability, under which compensation was paid him to January 15, 1931, when he returned to work. Subsequently, on September 21, 1931, after an inquiry by the compensation authorities, a supplemental agreement *342was entered into and approved by which claimant’s disability was declared to be partial and compensation at $9.75 per week was to be paid him from May 9,1931.

Shortly before the expiration of the 300-week period claimant filed a petition with the Board alleging total disability and asking for a review and reinstatement of the agreement for total disability.

The petition was referred to a referee, who after various hearings and proceedings, not necessary to be recited, made findings that claimant was totally disabled and entered an order setting aside the supplemental agreement and awarding claimant total disability payments of $15 per week from July 24, 1930, with the exception of the time claimant was working for the defendant company, during which period compensation for partial disability was allowed.

On appeal to the Board, the eighth, ninth and tenth findings of fact and second, third and fourth conclusions of law of the referee were set aside and the Board substituted its own findings (8 and 9) to the effect that claimant was only partially disabled and that his disability was not any greater than it was at the time the supplemental agreement was entered into, and dismissed claimant’s petition.

On appeal to the common pleas the Board was sustained. The only question raised by this appeal is whether there is competent evidence in the record to sustain the Board’s substituted findings of fact; for if there is, the judgment sustaining the order of the Board must be affirmed, since the conclusions and order of the Board naturally and legally follow the findings of fact.

We have carefully read the evidence in the record and agree with the court below that there? is ample competent evidence to sustain the Board’s findings of fact. No good purpose will be served by discussing it. The questiou was purely one of fact, the decision of *343which rested with the Board; *Hoosca v. Lytle Coal Co.,*129 Pa. Superior Ct. 434, 436, 196 A. 892. Their decision, when supported by competent evidence, is conclusive on the courts.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Armstead MITCHELL v. Mrs. Maxie SUTTON.

No. 2423.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1942.

Robt. R. Stone, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Pujo, Hardin & Porter and Elsie M. Whitman, all of Lake Charles, and Smith, Smith & Boyd, of Beaumont, Tex., for appellee.

*770DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Orphey et al. v. Sutton, 8 So.2d 766, this day handed down:

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from he and the same is hereby affirmed.

LeBLANC and OTT, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 954 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 12, 2008. 

Whereas Luis Aguilar was born in El Paso, Texas, on November 26, 1976, to Luis Aguilar and Cecilia G. Silva; 

Whereas Luis Aguilar resided in Somerton, Arizona, and is 

survived by his mother and father, his wife, Erica 

Aguilar, his two children, Luis and Arianna, his brother, 

senior Border Patrol agent Marco Antonio Aguilar, and 

his sister, Angie Aguilar; 

Whereas Luis Aguilar joined the United States Border Patrol 

on July 21, 2002; 

Whereas on January 19, 2008, after over 5 years of dedicated service in the United States Border Patrol, Luis 

Aguilar selflessly paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to 

the United States; 

Whereas Border Patrol agents carry out the vital role of protecting our Nation’s borders and ensuring the safety of 

the United States; 

Whereas Border Patrol agents work devotedly and selflessly 

on behalf of the people of the United States, without regard for the peril or danger to themselves; and 

Whereas the United States will forever be grateful for the 

service of Luis Aguilar and mourn his loss: Now, therefore, be it 
2 

•HRES 954 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the dedication and sacrifice made by 

the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as United States Border Patrol agents; 

(2) honors Luis Aguilar for his service as a Border 

Patrol agent and for his sacrifice to the United States; 

and 

(3) extends its deepest condolences to the family of 

Luis Aguilar. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01742-REB-MEH

CHRISTINE ARAGON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, a Texas limited partnership,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 22, 2011.

The Stipulated Motion for Entry of Protective Order [filed September 22, 2011; docket #13]

is granted. The proposed Protective Order is accepted, issued and filed contemporaneously with

this minute order.