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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM * THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      31,844,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,021,980
<PP&E>                                       4,948,891
<DEPRECIATION>                                 976,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,523,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,403,477
<BONDS>                                      2,655,737
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,857
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,371,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,523,645
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,721,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,461,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,461,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,461,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
         

</TABLE>
#### J. P. Bates et al. v. J. F. Evans & Co.

(No. 2941.)

May 31, 1884

Appeal from Denton County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§211. *Amendment of petition, not permissible after a judgment by default.*It is not permissible for the plaintiff to amend his petition after he has taken a judgment by default, without first having the judgment set aside. But this objection to an amended petition cannot be entertained when made for the first time in the appellate* court. [Portwood v. Wellburn, 33 Tex. 713; Tullis v. Scott, 38 Tex. 537.]

§212. *Admission of principal binds sureties.*This was a suit upon a written obligation against.a principal and his sureties to recover money alleged to be due thereon. Plaintiff read in evidence, over the objection of defendants, an instrument in writing, signed by the principal, admitting that he was indebted to the plaintiff on the contract sued upon, the amount claimed in the suit. *Held,*that this instrument did not supersede the original obligation, but was merely an admission of the indebtedness sued for, and as such was competent evidence not only against the principal, but against his sureties also. [Abbott’s Trial Ev. 474; Brandt on Sure. & Guar. 656.]

Affirmed.
627 A.2d 105

#### IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN P. KERNAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

June 23, 1993.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that STEPHEN P. KERNAN, of BRIDGETON, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1981, and who has been on disability inactive status since June 27, 1991, be publicly reprimanded for his conduct in the handling of a civil litigation matter, in violation of *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence) and *RPC*1.4 (failure to keep client reasonably informed about status of matter);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further recommending that on respondent’s return to active status he practice under the supervision of a proctor and submit quarterly psychiatric reports for a périod of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted and respondent is publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that on restoration to active status respondent shall practice under the supervision of a proctor, approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years; and it is further

ORDERED that on restoration to active status, respondent shall submit to the Office of Attorney Ethics quarterly psychiatric reports attesting to his sobriety and mental fitness to practice law, for a period of two years; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this Order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said STEPHEN P. KERNAN as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

*65ORDERED that STEPHEN P. KERNAN reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.
#### Paul POMFRET and PDP Capital, LLC, Appellants, v. John ATKINSON and PDP Management L.P., Appellees.

No. 4D09-1708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 23, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 2011.

Alan B. Rose, L. Louis Mrachek, Roy E. Fitzgerald and Stefanie R. Shelley of Page, Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A., West Palm Beach, Bernard A. Lebedeker of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, West Palm Beach, and Robert S. McIntosh of Adorno & Yoss, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

*ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITTEN OPINION*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing and request for issuance of a written opinion. We deny the motion for rehearing but grant appellant’s motion for issuance of a written opinion. Accordingly, we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following.

*Affirmed. See DelMonico v. Traynor,*50 So.3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ. and TOWBIN SINGER, MICHELE, Associate Judge, concur.
No. 87-1160.

#### Duquesne Light Co. et al. *v.*Barasch et al.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. Probable jurisdiction noted.
#### STATE in the Interest of B.L., A.J., and O.A.M-L.

No. 2011-CJ-2722.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 2011.

In re Martinez, Maira; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court, Nos. 2010-TP-33, 2010-CC-00059; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-C-1053.

Denied.
Exhibit
10.25

    


    Summary of Loan
Agreement

     

    Loan from Hanting Kaiyuan Rural
Credit Cooperative

     

    
       On
July 1, 2007, PRC Yuhe entered into a loan agreement with Hanting Kaiyuan Rural
Credit Cooperative. Pursuant to the loan agreement, Hanting Kaiyuan Rural Credit
Cooperative loaned PRC Yuhe $1,064,901 at an interest rate of 9.248% per annum.
PRC Yuhe is obligated under such loan agreement to pay interest monthly and
repay the loan on its maturity date, January 1, 2009. PRC Yuhe uses the loan to
finance the purchase of raw materials. The loan is secured by the plant and
equipment of PRC Yuhe with a net book value of $1,297,128 as of September 30,
2008. There are no material covenants, conditions or restrictions in PRC Yuhe’s
loan agreements with Hanting Kaiyuan Rural Credit
Cooperative.
Seventh Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement


 Exhibit 10.2 
 Seventh Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement 
 Between Sprint Spectrum L.P. and
Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. 
 This Seventh Amendment (“Seventh Amendment”) is made to that certain Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement
between Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint PCS”) and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (formerly Virgin Mobile USA, LLC) (“VMU”) dated October 16, 2007, as amended, (the “PCS Services Agreement”). Capitalized terms
not defined in this Seventh Amendment are defined in the PCS Services Agreement. 
  

	1.	Schedule 1.0 of the PCS Services Agreement and Exhibit A to Schedule 1.0 are deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedule 1.0 and Exhibit A to Schedule 1.0 attached to this
Seventh Amendment. 

  

	2.	Except as specifically provided above, the PCS Services Agreement remains in effect in accordance with its terms. 

 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have executed this Seventh Amendment as of the dates indicated below. 
  

									
	SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.	  		  	 VIRGIN MOBILE USA, L.P. (formerly Virgin
 Mobile USA, LLC)

					
	By:	  	/James D. Patterson/	  		  	By:	  	/Daniel H. Schulman/
					
	Name:	  	James D. Patterson	  		  	Name:	  	Daniel H. Schulman
					
	Title:	  	President Wholesale	  		  	Title:	  	Chief Executive Officer
					
	Date:	  	12/22/2008	  		  	Date:	  	12/22/2008

 Sprint PCS / Virgin Mobile USA Confidential Information 
  

 1 







 Schedule 1.0 
 PCS Service Pricing 
 ***
#### Edward Leon WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 6351.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 30, 1960.

Certiorari Denied June 13, 1960.

See 80 S.Ct. 1257.

*151Whit Pate, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Oklahoma, for appellee.

Before PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges, and KERR, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying an application for writ of habeas corpus. On Williams’ plea of guilty to the charge of kidnapping he was sentenced to death by an Oklahoma trial court and that sentence is to be executed on April 4, 1960. The facts in this case are fully set out in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. State of Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 79 S.Ct. 421, 3 L.Ed.2d 516, affirming Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 321 P.2d 990, and need not be here repeated.

An application for writ of habeas corpus to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was denied,1 and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 23, 1960.

Williams urges that he was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that he did not have adequate representation by counsel and that he was misled by pre-arraignment statements of the sentencing court to his counsel from which he inferred that capital punishment would not be imposed.

The court has examined the aforementioned decisions and the record of the proceedings before the United States District Court. From such examination it appears that the issues now presented have been decided contrary to the appellant. In Williams v. State of Oklahoma, supra, 358 U.S. at pages 578-579, footnote 3, 79 S.Ct. at page 423, the United States Supreme Court set out the essential portions of the arraignment proceedings at which the plea of guilty was entered. These show that the plea of guilty was entered freely and voluntarily with full information as to the sentence which might be imposed and that there had been no representation by counsel or anyone else as to the sentence which might be expected upon a plea of guilty. The record further discloses that the appellant at all times has had adequate and effective representation by counsel. Indeed, it appears that at the conclusion of the argument before the United States Supreme Court in this case appellant’s counsel was publicly commended. In the United States District Court and in this court appellant has had the benefit of able counsel. The fate which awaits ap*152pellant is one of his own making and he cannot now lay the blame upon any of his lawyers.

We find no denial of due process and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.

1

. In re Williams, Okl.Cr., 341 P.2d 652.
627 A.2d 1127

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MIGUEL ANGEL OQUENDO.

March 9, 1993.

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on defendant’s appeal pursuant to *Rule*2:2-l(a)(2), and the Court having previously overruled the majority opinion of the Appellate Division herein, see *State v. Rosado,*131 *N.J.*423, 429, 621 A.2d 12, 14-15 (1993);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that so much of the judgment of the Appellate Division as denied defendant jail credit for time spent on parole is summarily reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with *Rosado, supra.*Jurisdiction is not retained.
#### STATE ex rel. Donald ROSS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Ross, Donald; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 88-67; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2244.

Denied.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 21.01
                            RWD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                               RWD SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
            LOCATION/ADDRESS                REGISTRATION/COMPANY NO.             DATE FORMED
---------------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                            <C>
UK
RWD Technologies UK Limited
C/O Garrett & Co.                                     03314693                 FEBRUARY 3, 1997
180 Strand
London WC2R 2NN

---------------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
AUSTRALIA
RWD Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
C/- Mr R Tracey,                                      079 969 930              SEPTEMBER 4, 1997
Level 18, 141 Walker Street, North Sydney, 
NSW 2060.
 
Directors: Dr R Deutsch, Mr J Beakes Jr, 
Mr R Holtz and Mr R Tracey
 Secretary: Mr R Tracey
Public Officer: Mr R Tracey
Shareholder: RWD Technologies, Inc.

---------------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
MEXICO
RWD Mexico, S. de R.L.
Versalles 21 303                                      RME970423BF7             APRIL 23, 1997
Col. Juarez Cuauhtemoc DF C.P. 06600
Entre Atenas Y General Prim
Mexico

---------------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
</TABLE>
Rogers
Consulting Group 

      
        

      

    

    Specialty
Securities Advisement

    


    August
18, 2008

    


    Dr.
Alexander Gak

    BAETA
Corp.

    253
Warren Avenue

    Fort Lee,
NJ 07024

    


    RE: Amendment Extension to Agreement
for CFO Services

    


    Dear Dr.
Gak:

    


    This
letter serves to memorialize the recent changes to our Agreement for CFO
services, and to extend the terms of the Agreement in accordance with its terms,
as follows:

    


    
      	
                        
      1.

            	
              That
      the parties hereby agree to extend the agreement for an additional four
      (4) month term, per the terms set forth in the original Agreement, dated
      May 15, 2008.

            


    

    


    
      	
                        
      2.

            	
              That
      all equity-in-lieu compensation for both the first and second terms shall
      be at a rate of $0.25/ common
share.

            


    

     

    Sincerely,

    


    

    


    Douglas A
Rogers, President

    Rogers
Consulting Group

    


    


    Amendment
Accepted this 15th Day of August, 2008:

    


    

    


    
      
        
          
            	 
      	 	 
      
	
                    Signature
      – Rogers Consulting Group

                  	 	
                    Signature
      – BAETA Corp.

                  


          

        

      

    

    


    Rogers
Consulting Group

    8251
Blackburn Avenue| Suite 4 | Los Angeles | CA | 90048

    Ph.
310.499.0552 | F. 323.852.7157

    Http://www.managesource.com
| CEO@managesource.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,760,000
<SECURITIES>                                24,454,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,970,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   239,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,145,000
<PP&E>                                      23,873,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,409,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              87,261,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,080,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,470,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,871,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                87,261,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           124,433,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              100,482,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,951,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,109,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,041,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,068,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,068,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33



</TABLE>
#### UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gerrtrude ABBOTT, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D11-374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 22, 2011.

Loughren & Doyle and Richard B. Doyle, Jr., and Katherine Hercher, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman, Jimenez <& Gomez and Paul B. Feltman, for appellees.

Before SHEPHERD and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

*ON CONFESSION OF ERROR*

PER CURIAM.

Upon Appellees’ proper confession of error, the trial court’s orders compelling appraisal before conducting an evidentiary hearing and denying reconsideration are reversed. *See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Maytin,*51 So.3d 591, 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); *Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condo. Ass’n, Inc.,*48 So.3d 188, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). This case is remanded for further proceedings.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                        
 1.  BEA Systems (FSC), Inc., Barbados

 2.  BEA International, Cayman Islands

 3.  BEA Systems, Ltd., Canada

 4.  BEA Systems Limitada, Brazil

 5.  BEA Systems SA de CV, Mexico

 6.  BEA Systems Europe GmbH, Germany

 7.  BEA Systems Europe N.V., Belgium

 8.  BEA Systems Pty Ltd., South Africa

 9.  BEA Systems AB, Sweden

10.  BEA Systems, Ltd., United Kingdom

11.  BEA Systems OY, Finland

12.  BEA Systems S.A., France

13.  BEA Systems (Switzerland) Ltd., Switzerland

14.  BEA Systems Japan Ltd., Japan

15.  BEA Systems Korea, Korea

16.  BEA Systems Pty Ltd, Australia

17.  BEA Systems HK Ltd., Hong Kong

18.  BEA Systems Spain S.A.

19.  BEA New Zealand Limited, New Zealand

20.  Bay Technologies Australia Pty Ltd., Australia

21.  Bay Technologies Services Unit Trust, Australia

22.  Independence Technologies Finland GMBH, Germany
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Damien ORBRO.

No. 2011-KO-1105.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Orbro, Damien; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-K-0805-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA10-1289.

Denied.
#### Joseph A. ROUGON, et al. v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY.

No. 2011-C-1137.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re BP America Production Company; Successor-In-Interest to Amoco Production Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 38716; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 2041.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William J. ROPER.

No. 2011-KO-0448.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Roper, William J.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 02-07-*11550591; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1241.

Denied.
Exhibit (4)(f)



 EXHIBIT 4(f) 
 Form of Endorsement (Fund Facilitation Fee) 








			
	

	  	Home Office located at:
	  	4 Manhattanville Road, Purchase, New York 10577
	  	Adm. Office located at:
	  	4333 Edgewood Road N.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499
	A Stock Company (Hereafter called the Company, we, our or us)	  	(319) 355-8511

 AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT 
 The policy to which this Amendatory Endorsement is attached is amended to include the addition of the following 
 Subaccounts: 
  

				
	 	  	Fund Facilitation Fee	 
	 AllianceBernstein Balanced Wealth Strategy Portfolio
	  	0.20	%
	 Franklin Templeton VIP Founding Funds Allocation Fund
	  	0.15	%

 If any of the above Subaccounts are elected, a Fund Facilitation Fee would be charged in addition to any policy
fees and charges, and will be used in the calculation of net investment factor as described in the Accumulation Units and Variable Annuity Units provisions of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee will only be charged when money is allocated to one
of the above Subaccounts and is guaranteed not to change during the life of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee is an annualized percentage taken from the daily net asset values of a fund share held in that Subaccount. 
 This endorsement takes effect and expires concurrently with the policy to which it is attached and is subject to all the terms and conditions of the policy not
inconsistent herewith. 
 Signed for us at our home office. 
  

									
		 	/s/ Craig D. Vermie	 		 		 	/s/ Peter G. Kunkel
		 	SECRETARY	 		 		 	PRESIDENT

 AE 1288 0608 (NY)