alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE> 5    
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000    
           

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                              83,460
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       22,487
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        160,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   270,883
<PP&E>                              72,366
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     356,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              104,043
<BONDS>                            143,048
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               122
<OTHER-SE>                          89,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       356,760
<SALES>                            819,527
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   819,527
<CGS>                              668,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      668,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   8,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (2,694)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (2,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.22)
            

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.1

                                AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                    TO THE
                           STATE STREET CORPORATION
                          1997 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

  Amendment No. 3 to the State Street Corporation 1997 Equity Incentive Plan
(the "Plan").

                                    RECITAL

  The stockholders of State Street Corporation have approved the following
amendment to the Plan:

  1. To increase the aggregate number of shares that may be delivered under
     the Plan, subject to adjustment as provided in the Plan, from 8,000,000
     to 15,900,000.

  2. Except as amended above, the Plan remains in full force and effect.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, State Street Corporation has caused this instrument of
amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 24th day of
April, 2000.

                                          State Street Corporation

                                          By: /s/ Trevor Lukes
                                            _______________________________

                                          Name: Trevor Lukes
                                              _____________________________

                                          Title: Senior Vice President
                                              _____________________________
Exhibit 35.1




SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE




PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE




SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




Re:
HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I


Series 2007-1, Class A Notes; Series 2007-1, Class B Notes







I, Dennis J. Mickey, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer – Treasury of HSBC Finance Corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB of  the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 3.05 of the Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 11, 2006 amending and restating in full the Transfer and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 12, 2001 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Funding (USA) Inc. V, as Transferor, the Company, as Servicer, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee of the HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I, hereby certify that:





1.
A review of the activities of the Company from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and





2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below:





NONE





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 28th day of March 2011.








HSBC Finance Corporation











By: /s/ Dennis J. Mickey


Name: Dennis J. Mickey
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALMA ROSA NAVARRETE

- PRADO,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73180 Agency No. A070

- 121

- 516

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017 **
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alma Rosa Navarrete

- Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 73180

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarrete

- Prado’s motion as untimely, where the motion was filed more than 1 5 years af ter the applicable regulatory deadline of September 30, 1996 , and she did not establish any grounds for equitable tolling of the filing deadline

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (“A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the da te of entry of a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later.”); Socop

- Gonzalez v. INS , 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (e quitable tolling is applied in cases where despite all due diligence, the party invoking equitable tolling is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim ( citation omitted)). In addition, Navarrete

Prado has not established grounds for equitable estoppel based on alleged IJ
mi sconduct. See Socop

- Gonzalez , 272 F.3d at 1184 (equitable estoppel requires a showing of affirmative misconduct

— a “deliberate lie” or “pattern of false promises”

—

by a government actor).
Navarrete

- Prado’s contention that the agency erred in denying sua sponte reopening for failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch , 8403 15

- 73180

F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)

. In light of th ese determination s , we do not reach Navarrete

- Prado’s remaining contentions regarding her underlying 1993 exclusion proceedings and her eligibility for adjustment of status. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action No.: 11-cv-02523-REB-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck - Courtroom A402

Date: July 20, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

BRITTANY THURMAN,

Plaintiff,

Kimberly Patrice Everette

v.

ARTHUR PETERSON, et al., 

Defendants.

Writer Mott 

Gillian Dale

Amy Christine Colony

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE

Court in Session: 10:39 a.m. 

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

The court addresses the parties regarding the plaintiff’s Third STATUS REPORT (Docket No.

38, filed on 7/19/2012), the defendant’s MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint (Docket No. 25,

filed on 1/6/2012), and the defendant’s MOTION to Dismiss (Docket No. 26, filed on 1/6/2012). 

Discussion regarding the motions to dismiss and the responses that still need to be filed for those

motions.

Discussion regarding the pending criminal case which has been set for trial and how the ruling in

that criminal case impacts this case.

Discussion between the court and defense counsel regarding withdrawing their pending motions

to dismiss. The court advises that these motions can be withdrawn at this time and re-filed once

the criminal trial has concluded. 

Case 1:11-cv-02523-REB-CBS Document 39 Filed 07/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED: The defendant’s MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint (Docket No. 25, filed on

1/6/2012), and the defendant’s MOTION to Dismiss (Docket No. 26, filed on

1/6/2012) shall be WITHDRAWN without prejudice. 

ORDERED: A telephonic Status Conference is set for October 29, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. at

which time the parties shall be prepared to come up with a plan on how to get this

case moving forward.

The court instructs the parties to contact Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s chambers (303.844.2117)

within 72 hours of the completion of the criminal trial if it is before the October 29, 2012 status

conference date. 

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 10:53 a.m.

Total time in court: 00:14

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at

(303) 825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-02523-REB-CBS Document 39 Filed 07/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Deny and Opinion Filed November 8, 2021

In The 

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

No. 05-21-00826-CV

IN RE WEATHERALL FAMILY FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ETERNAL REST FUNERAL HOME, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15878

ORDER Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus and DENY relator’s motion to stay as moot.

/David J. Schenck /

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
Case 1:11-cv-01981-BNB Document 10 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01981-BNB Document 10 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01981-BNB Document 10 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHNNIE STOWE,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 28 EAP 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 19, 2020

AND NOW , this 19th day of February, 2020

, Appellee’s Application for Summary

Relief is GRANTED. The Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in thecapacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

ThisCertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date:  November 15, 2004 |                                                   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |  /s/  Elliott Balbert                             |
|                     |  Elliott  Balbert                                 |
|                     |  President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
|                     |  (Principal  Executive Officer)                   |

 

----

----
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior.

# ACTION:

Correction: Notice of boundary revision at Joshua National Park.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     dated October 3, 2008, Volume 73, No. 193, page 57650, information was printed incorrectly. In the first paragraph of the second column, the ninth line down should read Joshua Tree National Park, not Mesa Verde National Park.                

Jerry Buckbinder,

Printing Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-23980 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.212 Corporate and Foreign Bonds** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000766041
<NAME> CENTRAL SPRINKLER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,605
<SECURITIES>                                    10,607
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,945
<INVENTORY>                                     38,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,335
<PP&E>                                          48,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,850
<BONDS>                                         26,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,335
<SALES>                                         40,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,750
<CGS>                                           28,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,683
<INCOME-TAX>                                       642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,041
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Utah corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company,

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company, 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a New

Jersey insurance company,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Defendant and Cross-Claim Defendant Everest National Insurance

Company’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Pleading to Assert Counterclaims Against

Plaintiff Okland Construction Company and Cross-Claims Against Defendants The

Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The Phoenix Insurance Company, and St. Paul

Surplus Lines Insurance Company [Doc. # 51, filed 5/25/2012] (“Everest’s Motion to

Amend”); and

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 59 Filed 06/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

(2) The Phoenix Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of

America, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance

Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s Motion for Leave to

Amend Its Pleadings to Add Counterclaims Against Okland Construction Company, Inc

and Amended Cross Claims Against Everest National Insurance Company [Doc. # 52, filed

5/25/2012] (“Phoenix’ Motion to Amend”).

The motions were set to be heard on June 12, 2012. Prior to the hearing, my chambers

was contacted and informed that neither motion is opposed.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Everest’s Motion to Amend [Doc. # 51] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to accept for filing Doc. # 51-1; and

(2) Phoenix’ Motion to Amend [Doc. # 52] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to accept for filing Doc. # 52-1.

Dated June 12, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 59 Filed 06/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00089-CR

MICHAEL TAPIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-74-C1

ORDERS AND

ORDER ON REHEARING

We dismissed this appeal on March 22, 2017 because the notice of appeal was 

untimely filed. Appellant’s motion for rehearing was due April 6, 2016. Appellant filed 

a motion for extension of time to file his motion for rehearing, requesting a 15 day 

extension. Before we could rule on the motion, appellant filed his motion for rehearing, 

entitled “Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration Pursuant to Tex. R. of App. 

Proc. 49., 49.1,” on April 19, 2017. 
Tapia v. State Page 2

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing is granted; 

the motion for rehearing is due as of the date it was filed.

Along with the motion for rehearing, appellant also filed a Motion for 

Appointment of Appeal Counsel and a Motion for Leave to File regarding the number of 

copies of any motions filed. None of these motions were served as required by Rule 9.5 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. However, we use Rule 2 

to dispense with the service requirement and move to a disposition of appellant’s 

motions. TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

Appellant’s “Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration Pursuant to Tex. 

R. of App. Proc. 49., 49.1” is denied. Appellant’s Motion for Appointment of Appeal 

Counsel and Motion for Leave are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion for extension of time granted

Motion for rehearing denied

Motion for appointment of counsel dismissed as moot

Motion for leave dismissed as moot

Order issued and filed April 26, 2017
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23859]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Extension of Public Comment Period for the Proposed White Elk 
Military Operations Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ACTION: Extension of Public Comment Period for the Proposed White Elk 
Military Operations Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council on 
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-
1508), and Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process as 
implemented by 32 CFR Part 989, the United States Air Force (Air Force) 
is issuing this notice to advise the public of our intent to provide an 
extension of the public comment period for the Proposed White Elk 
Military Operations Area (MOA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).
    The original comment period was scheduled to close on 29 September 
2008 (Federal Register: August 15, (Volume 73, Number 159) [Notices] 
[Page 47948-47949]. The comment period now ends on 13 November 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please submit written comments to Ms. 
Sheryl Parker, White Elk MOA EIS Project Manager, HQ ACC/A7PP, 129 
Andrews St., Ste. 122, Langley AFB, VA 23665-5399. For additional 
information, please contact Ms. Barbara Fisher at 75 ABW Public Affairs 
Office, Hill AFB, Utah, at (801) 775-3652.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-23859 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P