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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                918
<SECURITIES>                       125,000
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   125,918
<PP&E>                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     125,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              260,684
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                             5,663
<OTHER-SE>                        (140,429)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       125,918
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         0
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       71,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (71,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (71,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                       (71,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.01)
        


</TABLE>
#### CONTINENTAL COPPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Ralph Rokeby JOHNSON, Excess Ins. Co., H.S. Weavers, English and American Stronghold Ins. Co., Turegum Ins. Co., and Assicurazioni Generali, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 511, Docket 80-7762.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 17, 1980.

Decided Jan. 13, 1981.

Opinion Filed Feb. 6, 1981.

Daniel H. Murphy, II, New York City (Ralph V. O. Curtis, Arthur J. Washington, Mendes & Mount, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Joseph Chase, New York City (Robin Hirsch, Hall, Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Howley, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MOORE, MANSFIELD and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant insurers and insurance companies appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York entered on August 18, 1980, by Judge Robert W. Sweet, which granted the motion of plaintiff Continental Copper and Steel Industries, Inc. for summary judgment, di*60recting the insurers to reimburse it for funds expended in the indemnification of five of its directors in their successful defense of a suit by International Halliwell Mines, Ltd. against Continental and the five directors.

In 1961 Continental, the largest single stockholder of Halliwell, had designated five of its directors to serve as nominees on Halliwell’s board in order to protect Continental’s interest as the financier of Harwell's failing operations. In 1970 Halliwell brought the suit against Continental and the five directors, claiming unlawful domination, misappropriation of corporate opportunities and breach of fiduciary duties to Halliwell. The suit was dismissed on the basis of a release executed by Halliwell in favor of Continental in 1967. The expenses of the five directors in successfully defending amounted to $315,000, which Continental paid and for which it seeks reimbursement under its insurance policy issued by the defendants.

The defendants claim that the policy does not cover expenses because it applies only to wrongful acts committed by directors in their respective capacities as directors or officers of Continental and not to acts committed in their capacities as officers and directors of Halliwell. Even accepting the defendants’ own interpretation as to the capacity limitation, however, it calls for reimbursement because the directors were not sued solely for breach of their duties as Halliwell directors. They were also sued for wrongful acts committed in their capacities as directors and officers of Continental in mismanaging Halliwell for the benefit of Continental. In short they were allegedly acting on behalf of Continental in looting Halliwell for Continental’s benefit. They thus allegedly committed wrongful acts on behalf of the insured corporation, for which it must be reimbursed.

The order of the district court is affirmed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00160

- CR

D ERRICK C AVITT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 396th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1194940D )

December 31 , 2020

Per Curiam Memorandum Opin ion

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### Mayer, Sons & Co. v. J. C. Brown et al.

(No. 6712.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Morgan & Preeman, counsel for appellants.

McDonald Bros., counsel for appellees.

June 7, 1890.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 128. *Common carriers; contract of to be performed in another state; jurisdiction of courts of this state over.*Appellants sued appellees as receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, in justice’s court of Dallas county, to recover $65.40, the alleged value of a cask of wine alleged to have been lost and destroyed while being transported over said railway from Shreveport to Napoleanville, in the state of Louisiana. Said railway company was also made a party defendant in said suit. In justice’s court appellees recovered judgment. Appellees appealed to the county court, and in that court the cause was dismissed, because, in the opinion of the trial judge, the courts of this state did not have jurisdiction of the cause of action, as the wine was lost in another state, the contract for its transportation being limited to such other state. We are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in his judgment. We think the suit is maintainable in the courts of Dallas county. [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 324; Willis v. Railway Co., 61 Tex. 432; Liles v. Wood, 58 Tex. 417.] The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a trial *de novo*to the county court.

Reversed and remanded.
<Page>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.61

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This First Amendment ("First Amendment") to the Employment Agreement by and
between DSI Toys, Inc. ("Employer") and Joseph S. Whitaker ("Employee") is
hereby made to be effective the 1st day of December, 2001.

                                   WITNESSETH

1.     Employer and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement
       dated June 1, 2001 ("Agreement").

2.     Employer and Employee mutually agree to hereby amend certain terms and
       provisions of said Employment Agreement.

                                    ARTICLE I

1.1    Effective December 1, 2001, the position set forth in Paragraph 1.2 of
       the Agreement is President and Chief Executive Officer.

1.2    The term as set forth in Paragraph 1.3 of the Agreement is hereby
       extended and shall end on November 30, 2004.

                                   ARTICLE II

2.1    Effective December 1, 2001, the base salary as set forth in Paragraph 2.1
       of the Agreement shall be One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars
       ($180,000.00) per year.

2.1(a) Effective December 1, 2001, Paragraph 2.1 (a) of the Agreement is hereby
       restated in its entirety as follows: "At a minimum, the Base Salary shall
       be adjusted annually on December 1, commencing December 1, 2002, to
       reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Wage Earners
       (the "Index"). The Base Salary will not be adjusted downward to reflect
       any decrease in the Index

2.2    Effective December 1, 2001, the automobile allowance set forth in
       Paragraph 2.10 of the Agreement shall be Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars
       ($750.00) per month.

       EXCEPT and as herein altered, changed and amended the Agreement remains
in full force and effect.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment in
duplicate originals to be effective the 1st day of December, 2001.

EMPLOYER                                             EMPLOYEE
DSI Toys, Inc.

By: /s/ THOMAS V. YARNELL                            /s/ JOSEPH S. WHITAKER
   --------------------------------------            ---------------------------
   Thomas V. Yarnell                                 Joseph S. Whitaker
   Vice President / General Counsel
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 18, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00505

- CR & 04

- 17

- 00506

- CR

Richard Anthony GALINDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5792 , 5793 Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief i s hereby GRANTED. The Appellant ’ s brief is due on July 16, 2018. No further extensions , without extraordinary

circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
News United States Air Force
 Airman Handbook desktop icon available Dec. 18Published Dec. 15, 2015
                        
                        By Gloria Kwizera
                        
                        
                        Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANOTNIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Airmen will be able to access the Airman Handbook via a desktop icon slated to begin Dec. 18.
The Airman Handbook is a compilation of policies, procedures and standards that guide Airmen’s actions within the profession of arms.
Each desktop will have an icon with an e-Link to the handbook for easy and immediate access.
Kevin Denter, a Profession of Arms Center of Excellence professionalism program analyst, said the handbook is a professional development tool for all Airmen: active duty, Reserve, Guard, and civilian. 
“The handbook is an indispensable resource for Airmen to continue to learn, grow and propel our Air Force into the future,” Denter said. “It is a single publication that addresses important information on Air Force history, doctrine, values, customs, courtesies and much more.”
During the April 2014 biannual Enlisted Board of Directors meeting, a decision was made to combine the Professional Development Guide and Air Force Handbook into one publication so all Airmen would have a true desktop reference for the profession of arms. 
“The handbook provides reference material for the Promotion Fitness Examination and U.S. Air Force Supervisory Examination,” Denter said. “Specifically, individual enlisted promotion testing study guides were developed using information from the handbook.”
Denter further clarified that the handbook is published with all the information needed to effectively study for promotion. However, the study guides were developed so Airmen will not have to decipher what information is testable and what is not testable. The bottom line is that although both publications include similar information, the study guides are exclusively testable information for those studying for enlisted promotion.
“Since the Air Force is no longer printing the reference material required for promotion testing,” Denter continued, “the study guides were built to provide only testable information thus reducing the number of pages required if Airmen decide to print a copy at their expense.”
The study guides are available at www.studyguides.af.mil.  
“Airmen will now be only ‘one click’ away from this critical professional development tool,” Denter said.
For more information about professional development tools, visit http://www.airman.af.mil/Tools.aspx.Airman Handbook 



professionalism 



policies 



procedures 



standards 



Profession of Arms Center of Excellence
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 29, 2020

No. 04-19-00245-CR

Vanessa CAMERON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR4286C

The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 31, 2020, we abated this appeal to the trial court to make findings of fact with 

respect to whether any sealed motions or orders were missing from the clerk’s record and, if so, 

whether they were lost or destroyed and could be replaced by a copy or recreated by agreement 

of the parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(e). A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial 

court’s written findings and a sealed supplemental clerk’s record containing the omitted motions 

filed by appellant under seal and the related orders have now been filed in this court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of this court. The 

appellant’s brief is due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              NO WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP ON SAVING MEDICARE

  (Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, this January, Mexico was near bankruptcy, 
and the Clinton administration mounted a furious effort to save it.
  He might have been misguided or wrong. But at least he had the 
courage to be a leader.
  Where is the President now that Medicare is on the same path to 
bankruptcy as Mexico?
  He has made no proposals to save Medicare, even though his own 
Cabinet officials say it is going bankrupt.
  He is not even willing to negotiate with Republicans who are trying 
to save it.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is willing to save Mexico, but not the 
millions of senior citizens who rely on Medicare.

                          ____________________
```
#### St. Louis, I. M. & S. R’y Co. v. M. A. Berryhill.

(No. 2606.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for appellant.

Yaughan & Leary, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 319. *Flagging railroad train at night; failure of train to stop at flag-station furnishes no cause of action to ticket-holder, when.*Appellee purchased a passenger ticket over appellant’s line of railway from Texarkana to.Clear Lake, a distance of eight miles, said ticket being a round-trip ticket, entitling him to return from Clear Lake to Texarkana. Clear Lake was a flag-station on appellant’s line of railway, at which trains stopped only, when “flagged,” or signaled to do so. Appellee went to Clear Lake for the purpose of hunting. Desiring to return to Texarkana at night, he repaired to said Clear Lake station to take passage on the train. When the train arrived at and passed said station the night was very dark. Another person beside appellee was also at said station desiring to take passage on said train. Appellee and said other person attempted to signal the train to stop by waiving a white handkerchief and a valise back and forth. No other signals than these were used, and these signals being unobserved by the engineer on the train, although, as testified by him, he was on the lookout for signals, the train was not. stopped, and appellee walked to Texarkana in the night-time and in the rain. It was proved that the proper way to flag a train at night was by exhibiting a light in front of it. Appellee upon this state of facts brought this suit against ap*388pellant to recover damages, and recovered a judgment for $100 and costs of suit. *Held:*The evidence does not show a cause of action, and docs not suppoiVthe judgment. A good cause of action is alleged in the petition, ■but the allegations were not proved. It is alleged in the petition that plaintiff flagged the train; that defendant’s ■agents in charge of the'train knew that the train had been flagged, and maliciously refused to stop the train at Said station. Appellee’s own testimony shows that he did not flag the train in the usual way; nor did he signal it in any way by means reasonably calculated under the circumstances to attract the attention of those in charge of the train. Appellant’s agents in charge of the train were under no obligation to stop the train at said station unless notified that some person thereat desired it to stop, and appellee was cognizant of that fact.

November 9, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Robert W. Winston IIIName:
    
    Robert W. Winston, IIITitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    November 9, 2006
#### Robinson MATHURIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-3121.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 28, 2011.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and James W. Mclntire, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his judgment and sentence following his no contest plea to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver or sell. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The State has filed a Concession of Error because the Supreme Court of Florida has now disapproved of *State v. Laveroni,*910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), upon which the trial court relied in denying the motion. *See Harris v. State,*71 So.3d 756, 2011 WL 1496470 (Fla.2011).

We accept the Concession of Error, reverse the judgment and sentence, and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Reversed and Remanded.*

MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACK DONALD ANTONIO, AKA Jack
Antonio, AKA Jack Donald Castillo,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 71256

Agency No. A041

- 326

- 779

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jack Donald Antonio, a native and citizen of Belize

, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of

removal

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1 252. We review de novo

* 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

JUL 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 13

- 71256

questions of law

. Jauregui

- Cardenas v. Barr , 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir.

2020)

. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in conclud ing that Antonio failed to meet his burden to

establish that his conviction under Arizona Revised Statute s (“Ariz. Rev. Stats.”)

§ 13

- 3405 (A)(4) i s not an aggravated felony drug trafficking offense that renders

him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b( a )( 3 ); Pereida v.

Wilkinson , 141 S

. Ct. 754, 76 6 (2021) ( an applicant for relief bears the burden of

showing eligibility and cannot meet burden with an inconclusive conviction

record) ; see also Rosas

- Castaneda v. Holder , 655 F.3d 875, 885

- 86 (9th Cir. 2011)

(applying the modified categoria l approach to Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13

- 3405(A)(4)),

overruled on other grounds by Young v. Holder , 697 F.3d 976, 979

- 80 (9th Cir.

2012) (en banc).

We grant the unopposed motion for leave to file a brief of amicus curiae

.

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. A.N.J., III.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification granted. (See 192 *N.J.Super.*350)
<PAGE>

                          LA JOLLA COVE INVESTORS, INC.
                          1795 UNION STREET, 3rd FLOOR
                         SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94123
                            TELEPHONE: (415) 409-8703
                            FACSIMILE: (415) 409-8704
                            E-MAIL: LJCI@PACBELL.NET


LA JOLLA                     www.ljcinvestors.com                  SAN FRANCISCO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                October ___, 2003

Mr. D. Ronald Allen
Integrated Performance Systems Inc.
17300 North Dallas
Parkway, Suite 2040
Dallas, TX 75248


Re: Warrant Prepayment

Dear Ronald:

This  letter  will set forth our  agreement  for the  prepayment  toward  future
Warrant  exercises under the Warrant  Agreement dated as of October ___, 2003 by
and between Integrated Performance Systems Inc. ("Integrated") and La Jolla Cove
Investors,  Inc.  ("LJCI").  Capitalized  terms used  herein  and not  otherwise
defined herein shall have the definitions set forth in the Convertible Debenture
dated October ___, 2003 issued by Integrated to LJCI.

On the effective date of the Registration Statement,  LJCI shall wire the sum of
$400,000 to  Integrated.  Such funds shall  represent a  prepayment  towards the
future exercise of Warrant Shares under the Warrant Agreement. The timing of the
application of the prepaid funds shall be at LJCI's sole discretion.  Integrated
shall not be able to prevent LJCI from converting the Debenture and shall not be
able  to  prepay  the  Debenture,  regardless  of the  price  of the  Stock,  in
connection  with  the  Debenture   conversions   associated  with  such  Warrant
prepayments.

If this letter correctly reflects our agreement regarding the prepayment by LJCI
to Integrated  toward Warrant  exercises,  please  acknowledge your agreement by
signing below.

Sincerely,


Travis W. Huff
Portfolio Manager

Integrated Performance Systems Inc.

By: __________________________

Title: ________________________