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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
      Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Income in the company's Form
      10-Q for the nine months ending March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
      entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,166,463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,298,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,459,315)
<INVENTORY>                                 22,885,886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,567,016
<PP&E>                                      12,624,120
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,890,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,597,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,324,137
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,557
<COMMON>                                        37,765
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,383,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,595,002
<SALES>                                    127,890,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           127,890,757
<CGS>                                       77,365,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,236,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,686,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,548,029)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,691,143)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,691,143)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)



</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DANIEL MANN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3688 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. )

) Opinion filed August 21, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Brian Iten, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, C.J., and KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
585 A.2d 343

#### COHAB REALTY CORP., ETC. v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK AND LYNN YUHAS, T/A ESSEX BODY AND FENDER WORKS.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 394

#### FAB III CONCRETE CORPORATION v. HILTON NEW JERSEY CORPORATION.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
TO


STOCK
PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered effective November 29, 2021, by and among
INVO Bioscience, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Paradigm Opportunities Fund, LP (the “Purchaser”).
The Company and the Purchaser are collectively referred to as the “Parties.”


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
on or about September 30, 2021, the Company and Purchaser entered into that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, (the “Stock Purchase
Agreement”) pursuant to which the Purchaser agreed to purchase 600,703 shares of the Company’s common stock for an aggregate
purchase price of $1,999,740.29. The Stock Purchase Agreement is incorporated into this Amendment by this reference and all defined terms
in the Stock Purchase Agreement shall have the same meaning in this Amendment.


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties now wish to extend closing date from November 30, 2021 to December 31, 2021 in accordance with this Amendment.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.
Incorporation of Recitals . The Recitals set forth above are herein incorporated into this Amendment.


 


2.
Section 2.1—Date and Time. Section 2.1 of the Stock Purchase Agreement shall be amended to extend the definition of
“Closing” by deleting “November 30, 2021” and inserting “December 31, 2021” in lieu thereof.


 


3.
Amendment. This Amendment shall be deemed an amendment of the Stock Purchase Agreement in accordance with Section 6.8 of the
Stock Purchase Agreement.


 


4.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all
of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, have each executed this Amendment on the dates set forth above.


 


	 	COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	INVO
    Bioscience, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Steven Shum
	 	Name:	Steven
Shum
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Executive Officer


 


	 	PURCHASER:
	 	 
	 	Paradigm
    Opportunities Fund, LP
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Corey Deutsch
	 	Name:
    	Corey
    Deutsch
	 	Title:
    	CEO


 







    	2
585 A.2d 336

#### MID-ATLANTIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, INC., ET AL. v. STONE HILL WATER, CO., INC., ET AL.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

                                                          CODESHARE AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") is made and entered into as of February 8, 2002 (the "Effective Date"),
by and between Frontier Airlines, Inc. ("Frontier"), a corporation organized under the laws of Colorado, and Great
Lakes Aviation Ltd. ("Great Lakes"), a corporation organized under the laws of Iowa.

RECITALS:

A.       Frontier and Great Lakes have entered into a Codeshare Agreement, dated as of May 3, 2001
                  (the "Codeshare Agreement").  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment, but
                  not defined herein, shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Codeshare Agreement.

B.       Frontier has also entered into a codeshare agreement with Mesa Airlines, Inc.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Great Lakes and Frontier agree to amend the Codeshare Agreement as
follows:

1.       Add the following new Section 2(4):  In consideration for the reservation services, CRS fees, credit
                  card charge commissions, and certain ticketing services provided by Frontier under the
                  Codeshare Agreement, Great Lakes agrees to pay to Frontier a * per passenger fee for
                  passengers flying solely on connecting routes that involve flight segments operated by both
                  Mesa and Great Lakes under the F9 code; i.e., connecting routes that do not involve any
                  Frontier-operated segments.

2.       This Amendment shall be in full force and effect during the entire term of the Codeshare Agreement.

                                                              GREAT LAKES AVIATION, LTD.

                                                              By: ______________________________
                                                              Name: ____________________________
                                                              Title: _____________________________

                                                              FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.

                                                              By: ______________________________
                                                              Name: ____________________________
                                                              Title: _____________________________
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139757

HAROLD J. HOPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139757 COA: 292482 WCAC: 08-000236 SELECT AUTO PARTS, INC., and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 26, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62758-62759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting 
in Prather, California, November 17, 2010 and in Clovis, California, 
December 15, 2010. The purpose of the meetings will be to accept and 
review project proposals for the next funding cycle as well as review 
prior year accomplishments.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 17, 2010 from 6 p.m. to 
8:30 p.m. and December 15, 2010 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

[[Page 62759]]

ADDRESSES: The meeting on November 17th will be held at the High Sierra 
Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Rd., Prather, CA. The meeting on 
December 15th will be held at the Sierra National Forest Supervisor's 
Office, 1600 Tollhouse Rd., Clovis, CA. Send written comments to Robbin 
Ekman, Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, c/o 
Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry 
Road, Prather, CA 93651 or electronically to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robbin Ekman, Fresno County Resource 
Advisory Committee Coordinator, (559) 855-5355 ext. 3341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring Payments to States Fresno County 
Title II project matters to the attention of the Committee may file 
written statements with the Committee staff before or after the 
meeting. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Accept new project 
proposals and (2) Discuss accomplishments of previous projects.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Ray Porter,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 2010-25588 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1696 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1696

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 Tribe.

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

SECTION 1. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENT DETERMINED BY TRIBE.

    Section 108(a)(2) of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 
Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300g-7(2)) 
is amended by striking ``if the descendant'' and all that follows 
through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``if the descendant is 
enrolled by the tribe''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1696

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 Tribe.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARCO ANTONIO VELEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:04-cr-00093-TLW-1; 4:07-cv-70030-TLW) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Marco Antonio Velez, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Marco Antonio Velez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Velez has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

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
585 A.2d 344

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEGRAND REYNOLDS.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**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




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Safari Associates Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (The “Report), each of the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




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




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




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Safari Associates Inc. and will be retained by Safari Associates Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Dated:
                May 22, 2006 /s/ Zirk Englebrecht
              Zirk
                Englebrecht
              President
                and Chairman
Document

Exhibit 10.1  
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY


Non-Employee Director Compensation for Calendar 2022


Board and Committee Retainer for Calendar 2022


$119,000 shall be paid in cash
$144,500 shall be paid in shares of Campbell stock


Additional Retainers for Board Chair, Committee Chairs and Audit Committee Members


In addition to the above Board and Committee retainer, the following amounts shall be paid 50% in cash and 50% in shares of Campbell stock:
																		
						
	$350,000
	Chair of the Board

	$25,000
	Audit Committee chair

	$20,000
	Compensation and Organization Committee chair

	$15,000
	Finance Committee chair

	$15,000
	Governance Committee chair

	$7,500
	Audit Committee members (excluding the Audit Committee chair)









The retainers will be paid quarterly in arrears. Prior to the beginning of a calendar year, a non-employee director may elect to (i) receive shares of Campbell stock in lieu of the cash portion of any retainer (such election to be made in 10% increments) and/or (ii) defer all or a portion of any cash or stock retainer in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Campbell Soup Company Supplemental Retirement Plan.
1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 05-1472/1477

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Christopher L. Dion, also known as *

Christopher L. Sturgeon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 2, 2006

Filed: May 2, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Dion previously pleaded guilty to third degree burglary, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1153(a). Later the same year he pleaded guilty to

larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 661 and 1153(a). He was sentenced to

consecutive terms of 24 months and 12 months in prison, and to concurrent terms of

3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution. The district court1

later revoked supervised release for both offenses upon Dion’s admission that he had
-2-

violated the conditions of his supervised release by failing to answer truthfully all

inquiries by the probation officer and by failing to follow the probation officer’s

instructions. The court imposed revocation sentences of 24 months and 12 months in

prison, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Dion argues that the sentences are

excessive and that the court abused its discretion. 

The sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824,

825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness). Both prison terms were

within authorized limits, and the district court considered appropriate factors in

imposing the revocation sentences, including not only Dion’s conduct resulting in the

revocation but his abusive conduct toward his jailers while he was being detained

pending these proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)-(C), 3583(e)(3);

Tyson, 413 F.3d at 825-26 (sentence within statutory range and grounded in concerns

regarding defendant’s past behavior was not unreasonable). 

We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Controneo, 89 F.3d

510, 512-13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1018 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
585 A.2d 362

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KENNETH T. HAHAN.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCOS SANCHEZ-MACIAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71948

Agency No. A087-744-542

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Marcos Sanchez-Macias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

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

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Gutierrez v.

FILED

JAN 27 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that SanchezMacias failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in

the United States for cancellation of removal, where his testimony and record

evidence supported the agency’s finding that Sanchez-Macias knowingly and

voluntarily accepted voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings in 2009. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (acceptance of

voluntary departure terminates physical presence if petitioner understood he had

the right to go before an IJ and chose to depart instead).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sanchez-Macias’ remaining

contentions regarding his equities in the United States, his credibility, whether he

demonstrated good moral character, or whether he made a false claim of United

States citizenship.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-71948
585 A.2d 391

#### CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. BENEDICT TORCIVIA, JR.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Order entered September 30, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01539-CR

DEVANTE JEROME FOSTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-31115-R

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On September 21, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. We ADOPT the September 27, 2016 findings that: (1) 

appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by counsel Riann 

Moore of the Appellate Division of the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office who has not 

abandoned the appeal; and (3) counsel gave no explanation for the delay but requested thirty 

additional days to file the brief. We ORDER appellant to file his brief no later than October 31, 

2016.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE