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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF WINSTON HOTELS,
INC. EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH
31, 1999 AND THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,358
<PP&E>                                         442,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                     210,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,676
<SALES>                                         14,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,748
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,451
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,286
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6534

MARK CORRIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIANA CARMACK; MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; SARGEANT BAILEY; OFFICER BARNES; HOWARD ADAMS, Defendants - Appellees, and PITT COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY, Defendants.

No. 00-7611

MARK CORRIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; SARGEANT BAILEY; OFFICER BARNES; HOWARD ADAMS; DIANA CARMACK; KATHARINA DEWALD, Defendants - Appellees,2 and PITT COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY, Defendants.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-667-5-CT-BR) Submitted: February 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr., PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina; JoAnne Keeler Burgdorff, PITT COUNTY LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greenville, North Carolina; Tommy Willis Jarrett, DEES, SMITH, POWELL, JARRETT, DEES & JONES, Goldsboro, North Carolina; John Dale Madden, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina; G. Christopher Olson, Christopher W. Jones, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s order, which accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and rejected it in part, granting summary judgment in favor of all but one of the Defendants named in Corrigan’s action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000), and the order denying without prejudice Corrigan’s motion for reconsideration (No. 00-7611). Corrigan also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend thecomplaint and to appoint an expert witness (No. 00-6534). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. We deny the motion to strike Corrigan’s informal reply brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IB 

Union Calendar No. 51 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1515 

[Report No. 110–86] 

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 

certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the community 

development block grant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mr. COSTELLO (for himself and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

APRIL 16, 2007 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 to treat certain communities as metropolitan 

cities for purposes of the community development block 

grant program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1515 RH

1 SECTION 1. METROPOLITAN CITIES. 

2 Paragraph (4) of section 102(a) of the Housing and 

3 Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302) 

4 is amended by adding at the end the following new sen5 tence: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this para6 graph, with respect to any fiscal year beginning after the 

7 date of the enactment of this sentence, the cities of Alton 

8 and Granite City, Illinois, shall be considered metropolitan 

9 cities for purposes of this title.’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 51 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1515 

[Report No. 110

–86] 

A BILL 

To amend the Housing and Community Developnity development block grant program. as metropolitan cities for purposes of the commu- ment Act of 1974 to treat certain communities 

APRIL 16, 2007 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Gerald O. BELL v. Patrick THIBODEAUX and Affiliated Blind of Louisiana, Inc.

No. 2011-C-0079.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 25, 2011.

In re Bell, Gerald O.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2007-6244; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-174.

Denied.
Ack. for deferral of 2002 IP Bonus


Exhibit 10(iii)










ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR DEFERRAL 

OF 

FISCAL YEAR 2003 INCENTIVE PLAN BONUS 




    Energizer Holdings, Inc. and ______ acknowledge that, of the $______ FY2003 Bonus awarded to Participant under the Fiscal Year 2003 Incentive Plan Bonus Program, $______ shall be deferred, effective November 6, 2003, as previously requested by Participant, into the Measurement Fund(s) available under the Energizer Holdings, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan ("the Plan"). 




Pursuant to Participant's request, the following amounts have been deferred for Participant in the manner set forth below: 







(1)    Energizer Holdings, Inc. Common Stock Measurement Fund - 




(a)    $ in Energizer common stock equivalents and 




(b)    $ in Energizer common stock equivalents, representing the Company Matching Contribution (25% of amount listed in 1(a) above). 






(2)    Other Measurement Funds - $ in other Measurement Funds as previously selected by Participant. 







Participant's deferral as described hereunder is pursuant to the Plan and is subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the Plan. 
















ACKNOWLEDGED:            ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC. 







_____________________________     By:_______________________ 

Peter Conrad 

Vice President 

   Human Resources 

______________________________ 

Date
#### Ralph WARE v. GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 2011-C-0286.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Gemini Insurance Company et al.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natch-itoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 81810-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CA 10-594, CW 10-00003.

Denied.

VICTORY, GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
#### Pepper *v.*Pepper.

Atkinson, J.

A husband instituted suit for divorce in the State of Florida. The defendant filed an answer resisting the grounds of divorce, and praying for an allowance of alimony and attorney’s fees. *880The court rendered a judgment denying the plaintiff’s prayers for a divorce, and the defendant’s prayers for alimony, but allowing the defendant’s prayers for attorney’s fees and suit money amounting to $50 to cover the cost of talcing interrogatories in the case. *Held:*

No. 6395.

September 14, 1928.

Rehearing denied September 22, 1928.

Alimony, etc. Before Judge Howard. Fulton superior court. October 14, 1927.

*Orville D. Rogers*and W. A., *L. 8. & O. M. James,*for plaintiff in error.

*Underwood, Haas & Gambrell,*contra.

1. The judgment of the court in the State of Florida was not sufficient to bar a subsequent suit in the State of Georgia, instituted by the wife, for divorce from the husband and for temporary and permanent alimony for herself and minor daughter, and attorney’s fees. The judge did not err in overruling the special plea.

2. In the light of the pleadings and the evidence, this court can not say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding temporary alimony and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff as provided in the order.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### STATE ex rel. Maurice HARBOR v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0281.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Harbor, Maurice; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *1168Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 99-7555; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-WR-522.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Allen SNELLING.

No. 2010-K-1301.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Snelling, Robert Allen; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 391-08; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1313.

Denied.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GREATER ST. LOUIS BOWLING PROPRIETORS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.

No. 16390.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

March 15, 1960.

Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

William J. Becker, Clayton, Mo., Robert W. Kroening and Norman W. Armbruster, St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Order of National Labor Relations Board enforced, on petition for enforcement and stipulation filed with Board.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward WILLIAMS, IV.

No. 2010-KP-1435.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Williams IV, Edward; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 377430; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0283.

Denied.
#### Alberto RAMIRES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-3694.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 29, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 2011.

*919Alberto Ramires, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141.

WOLF, DAVIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
#### James Malcolm CHOATE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14021.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 21, 1960.

Leland H. Logan, Bowling Green, Ky., for appellant and Rodes K. Myers, and J. Reid Caudill, Bowling Green, Ky., on the brief.

Wm. B. Jones, and James C. Jernigan, Louisville, Ky., on the brief, for appellee.

Before MARTIN, WEICK and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant for violation of the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States against possession of untaxpaid liquor and the carrying on of the business of a distiller without having given bond as required by law;

And it appearing that there was ample substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury convicting appellant on both counts; and there being no showing made that the trial judge committed error in the conduct of the trial;

The judgment of the United States District Court is, accordingly, affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Smith, President and
Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ David A. SmithDavid
A. Smith President and Chief
Executive Officer

February 9, 2005
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00200-CR

DAIL RICHARD WARWICK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 4th District Court

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR17-159

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Dail Richard Warwick has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. As authorized 

by Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.2(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 24, 2017

Date Decided: October 25, 2017

Do Not Publish
#### STATE ex rel. Theortric GIVENS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0095.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Givens, Theortric; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 253-215.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
583 A.2d 307

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GARY THOMPSON.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,998
<SECURITIES>                                     6,918
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                       342
<INVENTORY>                                      2,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,010
<PP&E>                                           1,104
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,484
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,083
<SALES>                                         13,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,476
<CGS>                                            6,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,099)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,099)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CAROLYN DUTRIZ,

Appellant,

v.

BRETT C. BAKER,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-923

[January 26, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-DR006215-XXXX-NB.

Carolyn Dutriz, Palm Beach Gardens, pro se.

Brett C. Baker, Englewood, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STATE ex rel. Keith LONDON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-OK-0407.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re London, Keith; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial *675District Court Div., No. 20959-07; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09 01402-KH.

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Randolph COOPER, Appellant.

No. 14533.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Jan. 7, 1964.

Decided May 26, 1964.

*791Robert C. O’Hora, Wilmington, Del. (John P. Daley, Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for appellant.

Alexander Greenfeld, U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., for appellee.

Before STALEY, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appellant has been convicted of two offenses; willfully failing to purchase a wagering tax stamp for a period during which he engaged in the receiving of wagers, and willfully failing to file a required information return. On each count he contends that there was no proper proof of willfulness or bad purpose. We are satisfied, however, that the evidence relevant to each charge sufficed to take these questions to the jury. The appellant also challenges the evidence concerning his relationship to the gambling enterprise in question. However, there was evidence, which the jury was entitled to believe, that the appellant personally accepted wagers. We find no deficiency in this regard.

Finally, the appellant contends that it was prejudicial to permit jurors to sit in this case who had recently been jurors in other cases involving similar charges against other alleged gamblers. It appears, however, that these other •cases did not concern transactions or parties involved in this case. It is also noteworthy, though not controlling in itself, that at least one of those recent trials had resulted in an acquittal. We think the record shows no such likelihood that the jurors in question either were biased or had prior knowledge of circumstances relevant to the appellant’s case as would make it mandatory either to excuse any juror or to continue this case until a new panel should be summoned.

It is our conclusion that the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 20, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 20, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0212. THE CITY OF SAVANNAH v. JOANNE SENN et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: STCV1700993
#### In re Dennis F. NALICK.

No. 2010-B-2134.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 10, 2010.

*150ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.*

| pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against respondent, Dennis F. Nalick, an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Louisiana, Missouri, and Illinois, based upon an interim suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued an order immediately suspending respondent’s license to practice law pending a final determination of disciplinary proceedings against him. In its order, the Illinois court concluded that respondent had engaged in professional misconduct demonstrating that he poses a significant threat of harm to the public, based upon evidence that respondent had recently misappropriated client funds in connection with an succession matter.

After receiving notice of the order of interim suspension, the ODC filed a petition to initiate reciprocal discipline in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A certified copy of the decision and order of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois was attached to the motion. On September 22, 2010, this court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition | gof identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION

Based upon evidence that respondent converted client funds in a succession matter, the Supreme Court of Illinois has suspended him from the practice of law in that state pending further proceedings. The imposition of identical discipline in Louisiana is clearly appropriate, and there is no suggestion otherwise upon the face of the record. Accordingly, we will impose the same discipline against respondent as was imposed in Illinois.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that Dennis F. Nalick, Louisiana Bar Roll number 14259, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis, pending further orders of this court.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.