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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 657
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                           667
<INVENTORY>                                          1,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9,466
<PP&E>                                              12,014 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0 <F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      44,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,863
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               164
<OTHER-SE>                                           9,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        44,338
<SALES>                                                367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    14,478
<CGS>                                                  478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.26)


<FN>
<F1>  Fixed assets are reported net of accumulated depreciation in the balance
      sheet
</FN>


</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1584 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 

railroad track maintenance credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Mr. POMEROY (for himself, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. GOODE, and 

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

and modify the railroad track maintenance credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD 

4 TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 

7 45G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

8 to qualified railroad track maintenance expendimstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1584 IH

1 tures) is amended by striking ‘‘for maintaining’’ and 

2 all that follows and inserting ‘‘for maintaining— 

3 ‘‘(A) in the case of taxable years beginning 

4 after December 31, 2004, and before January 

5 1, 2008, railroad track (including roadbed, 

6 bridges, and related track structures) owned or 

7 leased as of January 1, 2005, by a Class II or 

8 Class III railroad (determined without regard 

9 to any consideration for such expenditures 

10 given by the Class II or Class III railroad which 

11 made the assignment of such track), and 

12 ‘‘(B) in the case of taxable years beginning 

13 after December 31, 2007, and before January 

14 1, 2011, railroad track (including roadbed, 

15 bridges, and related track structures) owned or 

16 leased as of January 1, 2008, by a Class II or 

17 Class III railroad (determined without regard 

18 to any consideration for such expenditures 

19 given by the Class II or Class III railroad which 

20 made the assignment of such track).’’. 

21 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 45G 

22 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (f). 

23 (b) COORDINATION WITH SECTION 55.—Section 

24 38(c)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

25 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i), by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1584 IH

1 striking the period at the end of clause (ii)(II) and insert2 ing ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following new 

3 clause: 

4 ‘‘(iii) the credit determined under sec5 tion 45G.’’. 

6 (c) CREDIT LIMITATION ADJUSTMENT.—Subpara7 graph (A) of section 45G(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue 

8 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$3,500’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘$4,500’’. 

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25




                                 March 5, 2003


Michele Bergerac

Dear Michele:

         The full year 2002 results ended with a pre-tax profit of $4,109,882.
Unfortunately, this was well below the lowest level where bonus is paid in our
2002 bonus program. I have adjusted the bonus levels as follows for 2003 in
accordance with our new plans.

         The bonus period will be the fiscal months of January 2003 through
December 2003. You must be an employee of Bakers Footwear Group for the full
year to earn your bonus. Your maximum bonus will be 114.3% of your cumulative
salary for this time period. Your bonus will be earned based on the pre-tax
profit (adding back depreciation and bonus) as follows:

<Table>
<S>       <C>                                                                    <C>
   10%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,000,000
   20%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,250,000
   30%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,500,000
   40%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $5,000,000
   50%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $5,500,000
 71.4%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $7,500,000
 92.7%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $8,500,000
114.3%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $9,500,000
</Table>

         Needless to say, we are looking for a strong rebound in profits and
bonus for everyone. Thank you for all your hard work and commitment.


                                                    Sincerely,



                                                    Peter Edison


ss
EXHIBIT
10.3

    


    December
26, 2008

    


    The Board
of Directors of

    China
Shoe Holdings, Inc.

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    This
letter confirms that I hereby resign as the Chief Financial Officer and from all
other offices that I hold with China Shoe Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
effective as of December 26, 2008.

    


    My
resignation is the result of disagreement with the Company on the matter
relating to its operations and practices.

    


    Sincerely,

    /s/ Angus
Cheung Ming

    Angus
Cheung Ming
#### STATE ex rel. Shelia E. JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2588.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Jenkins, Shelia E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 72,953; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-943-KH.

Denied.
#### Tynirsha W. RHINE, et al. v. BAYOU PIPE COATING, et al.

No. 2012-C-0197.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

*1280In re Bayou Companies, LLC; Gray Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 103,271; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 11-724.

Granted.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1633 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the Secretary 

of Homeland Security from prescribing regulations that preempt more 

stringent State regulations governing chemical facility security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2007 

Mr. ROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. SIRES, Mrs. 

LOWEY, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mrs. MALONEY of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit 

the Secretary of Homeland Security from prescribing 

regulations that preempt more stringent State regulations governing chemical facility security. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1633 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF 

2 MORE STRINGENT STATE CHEMICAL FACIL3 ITY SECURITY REGULATIONS. 

4 Section 877 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

5 (6 U.S.C. 457) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(c) CHEMICAL FACILITY SECURITY REGULA8 TIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

9 Secretary may not prescribe any regulation that precludes 

10 or denies any right of any State or political subdivision 

11 thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, 

12 or standard of performance with respect to chemical facil13 ity security that is more stringent than a regulation pre14 scribed by the Secretary.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### J. R. Barnett v. Rayburn & Fugate.

(No. 6446.) .

Appeal from Taylor County.

J. R. Barnett, counsel for appellant.

Cockrell & Cockrell, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*125§ 84. *Non-resident; suit against; jurisdiction of acquired by notice and attachment of property; amount in controversy; is the debt claimed and not the value of the property attached.*Rayburn & Fugate sued Barnett in the county court of Taylor county upon a draft for $281.62, alleged to have been executed by said Barnett. Barnett was a non-resident of this state, being a resident of the state of California. Rayburn & Fugate caused to be issued in said suit a writ of attachment, and had the same levied upon real estate situated in Taylor county, owned by Barnett, of the value of $4,000. Barnett was served with citation in said suit in California in the mode provided by statute in such cases. [R. S., art. 1230 et seq.] He appeared in the cause, and excepted to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit or of the amout in controversy in the suit. His exception and plea were overruled, and judgment was rendered against him for said sum of $281.62 and costs; and it was ordered that execution issue therefor, to be levied upon the real estate attached, but upon no other property of said Barnett. There was no foreclosure or attempt at foreclosure of the attachment lien on the land, but merely a recognition in the judgment of such lien. We are of opinion that there is no error in any ruling of the court, nor in the judgment rendered. That the court had jurisdiction of the person of Barnett we think is clear. Even if his appearance in the case was involuntary, and made necessary for the protection of his property against the attachment proceeding, and was not such an appearance as gave the court jurisdiction of his person [York v. State, 73 Tex. 651], still, the attachment of his property, being a proceeding *in rem,*gave the court such jurisdiction [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§408, 430]. That the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit is also clear. It is the amount of the alleged indebtedness, and not the value *126of the property attached, that is the amount in controversy. It is not sought in this suit to foreclose the lien upon the real estate attached, nor did the court decree such foreclosure. It was the object of the attachment to secure a lien upon the property, and bring it within the control of the courts of this state for the purpose of subjecting it in the proper forum to the plaintiff’s debt. [Id., § 430; Sayles’ Civil St., art. 180a.] As to the defect in the bond for attachment, conceding the defect, it is of a character which could, we think, be reached only by a motion to quash, and it was not incumbent upon the court of its own motion, nor upon the suggestion of an *amicus curies,*to quash the bond because of such defect. Believing that there is no error for which the judgment should be reversed, it is

April 20, 1890.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the "Company"), and Shin-Yuan Tzou, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 6thday of November, 2009.


/s/  Pehong ChenPehong Chen
Chief Executive Officer
  /s/  Shin-Yuan TzouShin-Yuan Tzou
Chief Financial Officer




This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
II 

Calendar No. 151 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1675 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

MAY 17, 2007 

Reported by Mr. DODD, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development regarding electronic filing of 

previous participation certificates and regarding filing 

of such certificates with respect to certain low-income 

housing investors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preservation Approval 

5 Process Improvement Act of 2007’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1675 RS

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIRE2 MENT. 

3 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

4 shall— 

5 (1) suspend mandatory processing of Previous 

6 Participation Certificates (form HUD–2530) under 

7 the Department of Housing and Urban Develop8 ment’s Automated Partners Performance System 

9 (APPS) and permit paper filings of such certificates 

10 until such time that the Secretary— 

11 (A) revises the December 2006 draft pro12 posed regulations under subpart H of part 200 

13 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, to 

14 eliminate the unnecessary burdens and dis15 incentives for program participants; and 

16 (B) submits such revised draft proposed 

17 regulations to the Committee on Financial 

18 Services of the House of Representatives and 

19 the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

20 Urban Affairs of the Senate for review by such 

21 Committees; and 

22 (2) suspend immediately all filing requirements 

23 under the Previous Participation Certificate process 

24 with respect to limited liability corporate investors 

25 who own or expect to own an interest in entities 

26 which are allowed or are expected to be allowed lowVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:22 May 18, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1675.RS H1675

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 1675 RS

1 income housing tax credits under section 42 of the 

2 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 151 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1675 

AN ACT 

To suspend the requirements of the Department of 

spect to certain low-income housing investors. and regarding filing of such certificates with retronic filing of previous participation certificates Housing and Urban Development regarding elecMAY 17, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### Peter Jensen v. J. Hays & Co.

(No. 1718.)

Error from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 566. *Citation; service of; variance betiveen copy and original, held*immaterial. Hays & Co. sued Jensen on two accepted drafts. One of these drafts was for $254.73, due *four*months after date. The petition and original citation described both drafts accurately, but the copy of citation served upon defendant described the above named draft as due *five*months after date. *Held,*this variance was immaterial and did not vitiate the service. It would not have been fatal had it occurred in the original citation. [Pipkin v. Kauffman & Runge, 5 Tex. L. Rev. 10.]

§ 567. *Holder of bill may sue notwithstanding same has been indorsed to another.*Hays & Co. were the payees and holders of the drafts which had been indorsed by them, and, subsequent to their indorsement, *500was another, to a bank for collection. No re-transfer of the paper to Hays & Co. appeared upon the same. *Held:*“Where there appears upon a bill or note an indorsement by the plaintiff, and subsequent indorsements to his, the question has been raised, whether or not he could sustain the suit without showing a re-transfer of the paper to himself. The better opinion is that he can. ... A holder may always strike out the special indorsements, and bring suit under any indorsement in blank. Where there appears on the paper the plaintiff’s own indorsement, it will be presumed, either that he had not perfected his indorsement by delivery, or that the paper had been returned to him as his own property, and in either case he has the right to sue upon it; and clearly, if his indorsement be to another for collection, he would have the right to sue, for if paid, the proceeds would belong to him.” [2 Dan’l, Neg. Inst. § 1198.] Hays & Co. being in possession of the drafts, *prima facie*had the right to sue thereon, and to defeat their suit it must have been shown that their possession was *mala fide.*[2 Dan’l, Neg. Inst. § 1200; Barnett v. Logue, 29 Tex. 282.]

February 25, 1885.

Affirmed.
***EXHIBIT
      32.1***





**CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)          The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:        May
                  7, 2008
            
            /s/
              H. Stewart ParkerH.
                Stewart Parker
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
#### VISION ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a, Bay Gardens Retirement Village, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 1D10-2125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Peter J. Molinelli, Thomas W. Caufman, and Sheila K. Nicholson of Quintarnos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Craig Smith, General Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, Tracy Lee Cooper and Dwight 0. Slater, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This court elects to treat the joint motion for relinquishment of jurisdiction as a concession of error by appellee. *See Stacey v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Nursing Home Adm’r,*547 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the agency for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1648 

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from closing Farm Service Agency 

offices in Appomattox, Virginia, and Lunenburg, Virginia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2007 

Mr. GOODE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from closing Farm 

Service Agency offices in Appomattox, Virginia, and 

Lunenburg, Virginia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CLOSING CERTAIN OFFICES 

4 OF THE FARM SERVICE AGENCY. 

5 The Secretary of Agriculture may not close or relo6 cate any Farm Service Agency office located in Appo7 mattox, Virginia, or Lunenburg, Virginia. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
856 A.2d 34

#### In the Matter of Starla Jean WILLIAMS.

No. 14 DB 2004, 60904.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 29, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2004, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated April 30, 2004, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that STARLA JEAN WILLIAMS, who has *390been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.