alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

GRAPHIC

PDS GAMING CORPORATION CONTINUES
MANAGEMENT BUYOUT NEGOTIATIONS

LAS VEGAS, NVSeptember 10, 2003PDS Gaming Corporation (NasdaqSC: PDSG) today announced that it has extended, until
November 15, 2003, its letter of intent relating to the proposed management group acquisition of shares of common stock of the Company, which was announced in the Company's press releases dated
February 24, 2003 and February 26, 2003.

A
special committee of the Company's Board of Directors, consisting of its independent directors, and the management group continue to negotiate toward a definitive agreement. The proposal is subject
to, among other things, the execution of a definitive agreement, approval by a committee of the Company's independent directors and by a majority of the Company's shares not owned by the management
group, the procuring of all necessary consents of the Company's commercial lenders and the trustees under the indentures covering the Company's outstanding debt securities, the securing of required
approvals from all gaming regulatory agencies, the obtaining of the necessary financing, and the receipt by the Company of a favorable fairness opinion from an investment bank.

For
additional information, please contact:

Peter
D. Cleary
Interim Chief Financial Officer
PDS Gaming Corporation
6171 McLeod Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89120
(702) 736-0700

A
PROXY SOLICITATION WITH RESPECT TO, OR TENDER OFFER FOR, THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF PDS GAMING CORPORATION COMMON STOCK HAS NOT YET COMMENCED. IF A PROXY SOLICITATION OR TENDER OFFER COMMENCES, EACH
HOLDER OF COMMON STOCK OF PDS GAMING CORPORATION SHOULD READ THE PROXY STATEMENT OR TENDER OFFER STATEMENT WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE MERGER OR
TENDER OFFER. ONCE A FILING IS MADE, HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK OF PDS GAMING CORPORATION CAN OBTAIN THE PROXY STATEMENT OR TENDER OFFER STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE FILED WITH THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AT ITS WEB SITE ATHTTP://WWW.SEC.GOV. HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK OF PDS GAMING CORPORATION MAY ALSO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE PROXY
STATEMENT OR TENDER OFFER STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR FREE BY CONTACTING JOHAN P. FINLEY AT THE COMPANY WHEN THE DOCUMENTS BECOME AVAILABLE.

###

---

QuickLinks
MEMORANDUM


TO:       Roxanne M. Hellickson, 
          Vice President/Corporate Secretary

FROM:     Home Federal Savings Bank

DATE:     July 29, 1998

RE:       Notice of Extension of Employment Contract

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

The Board of Directors (the Board) of Home Federal Savings Bank
has reviewed your formal performance evaluation performed by
selected members of the Board. In connection therewith and
pursuant to Section 1 of your contract, on May 19, 1998, the
Board determined to extend your employment contract until the May
Board Meeting, 2001.

                              HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK     

                         By:  /s/ M.F. Schumann
                              ---------------------------
                              M.F. Schumann


                     EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

     I hereby acknowledge receipt of this notice of extension of
the above-referenced agreement and accept the extension of the
term of such agreement.

                              EMPLOYEE  

Dated:      7-29-98           By: /s/ Roger P. Weise
      ---------------------       ------------------------
     (Correction from 5-19-98)     Roger P. Weise
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7332 

To prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to build a wall between Mexico 

and the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2018 

Ms. JACKSON LEE (for herself, Ms. BASS, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. 

FUDGE, and Mr. CASTRO of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 

Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit taxpayer funds from being used to build a wall 

between Mexico and the United States, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protect American Tax5 payers and Secure Border Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7332 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 

2 BORDER SECURITY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—No taxpayer funds may be obli4 gated or expended to build a wall or barrier intended to 

5 impede travel between Mexico and the United States. 

6 (b) FOREIGN PAYMENT REQUIRED.—Any wall or 

7 barrier described in subsection (a) that is proposed to be 

8 built shall be paid for using funds provided by the Govern9 ment of Mexico. 

10 (c) SECURING THE SOUTHERN BORDER.—The Sec11 retary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as 

12 may be necessary to secure the southern border by making 

13 maximum effective utilization of technology and improved 

14 training of U.S. Custom and Border Protection agents 

15 and officers. 

16 (d) INCREASE IN IMMIGRATION JUDGES.—The Attor17 ney General may appoint 100 additional immigration 

18 judges in addition to immigration judges currently serving 

19 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

20 (e) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary of 

21 Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be nec22 essary to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided 

23 to immigrants, refugees, and other displaced persons who 

24 are in need of medical assistance and aid to sustain health 

25 and life. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
585 A.2d 354

#### JOSEPHINE BADAN, A/K/A JOSEPHINE RIZZOLO v. ROBERT RIZZOLO.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff 

NIELSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 

AND 

VIRGINIA CONTRACTORS GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 0290-96-3 JUNE 18, 1996 

 

ARNOLD LESTER COOK 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Cathleen P. Welsh; Wharton, Aldhizer & 

Weaver, on brief), for appellants. 

 (A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Nielsen Construction Company, Inc. and its insurer contend 

that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that 

Arnold Lester Cook's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome qualifies 

as an occupational "disease" under the Workers' Compensation Act. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in 

Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, ___ Va. ___, ___, 467 S.E.2d 795, 802 

(1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from 

cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or 

however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under 

the present provisions of the Act"). 

 Accordingly, we reverse the commission's decision. 

 Reversed.
CARL BLACKMON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5461

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed February 10, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Terry D. Terrell , Judge

.

Carl Blackmon, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Brudnicki, Assistant Att orney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
584 A.2d 221

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.

May 21, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2564]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than February 22, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. Evelyn Rome Tabas, Narberth, Pennsylvania; to acquire voting 
shares of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. Narberth, 
Pennsylvania, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Royal 
Asian Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Royal Bank of America, 
Narberth, Pennsylvania.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. The Galen L. Curry Marital Trust and Donna M. Curry, Piqua, 
Kansas, trustee, to retain control of My Anns Corporation, and thereby 
indirectly retain control of Piqua State Bank, both in Piqua, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-2564 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wilnerson JULES, Appellee.

No. 4D10-2391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 11, 2011.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant. •

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from a downward departure sentence imposed on appellee. We reverse because there was no evidence presented that the need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence.

After accepting a plea, the trial court adjudicated appellee guilty of attempted *1139burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and criminal mischief. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor represented that restitution was $100 to replace a broken window. Over the state’s objection, the court imposed a mitigated sentence under section 921.0026(2) (e), Florida Statutes, based on the court’s opinion that the victim’s need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence.

A trial court’s decision to mitigate a sentence under section 921.0026(2)(e) is reviewed for competent, substantial evidence that the victim’s need for restitution outweighs the need for incarceration. *Kirby v. State,*863 So.2d 238, 245 n. 10 (Fla.2003); *Banks v. State,*732 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla.1999). A downward departure sentence may be justified “[i]f the harm suffered by the victim as a result of the [offense] was greater than normally expected, and restitution could mitigate that increased harm.” *State v. Prasad,*889 So.2d 204, 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Reversal is warranted, however, “[w]here there is no evidence of a pressing need for restitution, or that a downward departure is required to ensure that restitution is in fact made.” *State v. Schillaci,*767 So.2d 598, 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

The trial court erred in granting a downward departure sentence, as the defense presented no evidence that the need for restitution outweighed the need for a prison sentence. The owner of the business whose window was broken did not testify at the restitution hearing, and there was no testimony that the owner needed or even requested restitution. Additionally, there was no evidence regarding the amount of the loss, only the prosecutor’s unsworn, unverified statement. *See Wright v. Emory,*41 So.3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting an attorney’s “un-sworn, unverified statements do not establish competent evidence”).

Accordingly, we reverse appellee’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

*Reversed and remanded.*

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.4



|     |  |                                                                        
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | CMBS Department 
MACN9401-011 1055 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414

CITIBANK, N.A

388 Greenwich
Street

New York, New York 10013





|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Lynch Trust 2014-C17 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
| | -----------------------------------------------------

| | CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2014-C17
| | -----------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August1, 2014
(the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the Reporting
Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision; and

(h) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|                           
|---------------------------
|February 18, 2015          
|                           
|/s/ Gail Vannest           
|Gail Vannest Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
FRESH AMERICA CORP.                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

Computation of Earnings per Common Share
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Quarter ended       Nine months ended
                                                    ------------------   ------------------
                                                    Sept. 29, Sept. 27,  Sept. 29, Sept. 27,
                                                      1995      1996       1995       1996
                                                    ------------------    -------    -------
<S>                                                 <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>    
Income applicable to common stock ...............   $   324    $   811    $ 1,296    $ 2,565
                                                    =======    =======    =======    =======
Computation of weighted average common shares:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding ....     3,518      3,642      3,518      3,518
  Options exercised .............................      --           56       --           89
  Assumed common shares issued upon exercise
  of stock options ..............................       281        363        281        313
    Less shares assumed repurchased with proceeds      (139)      (124)      (139)       (92)
  Assumed conversion of Common stock purchase
  warrants, net new shares issued ...............        59       --           59         90
                                                    -------    -------    -------    -------
                                                      3,719      3,937      3,719      3,918
                                                    =======    =======    =======    =======
Earnings per common share .......................   $  0.09    $  0.21    $  0.35    $  0.65
                                                    =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
585 A.2d 351

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL MILLER.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 216

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES S. HAMILTON.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael WALLIS.

No. 2010-KP-2230.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Wallis, Michael; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District *1248Court Div. K, No. 447-548; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0453.

Denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00248-CR

Eddie Earl Wright, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 67626, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Eddie Earl Wright plead no contest to the offense of forgery by passing, and

the trial court assessed punishment at twenty months in state jail with credit for time served. See

Tex. Penal Code § 32.21.

Wright’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; see also Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);

Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553,

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Wright and advised him of his right to examine the appellate
record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Wright did not file a pro se brief and

did not request an extension of time to do so.1

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous, and her motion to withdraw is

granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: August 15, 2013

Do Not Publish

Although he did not file a brief, Wright did file pro se motions seeking appointment of 1

different appellate counsel, reduced sentence, and further time credit. None of these filings present

any appellate issues alleging error in the trial court’s judgment or pronounced sentence.

2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 24, 2010, 6 p.m. to 
February 26, 2010, 4 p.m., Hilton Salt Lake City Center, 255 South West 
Temple, Salt Lake City, UT, 84101 which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 26, 2010, 75 FR 4092-4093.
    The meeting title has been changed to ``Program Project: 
Integrative Biomedical Computing Resource Center''. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-2462 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SHEILA FERGUSON,

Petitioner

v.

DERRICK MORTON AND PHILADELPHIA CYCLE CENTER,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 219 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of December, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
585 A.2d 339

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HARRY A. FRYAR, JR.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51108

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM HARRIS JONES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-90

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Harris Jones was convicted by a jury of using a cellular phone 

and the internet to attempt to coerce and entice a minor to engage in sexual 

activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The district court sentenced Jones 

to 120 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release and imposed 

the following special conditions of supervised release: a prohibition on sexually 

oriented materials; a prohibition on alcohol consumption; a prohibition on 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51108 Document: 00513364731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2016
No. 14-51108

2

residing where firearms are kept; a requirement that Jones submit to 

treatment and abide by the treatment program rules, including submitting to 

polygraph testing; and a prohibition on using or possessing a computer, the 

internet, or an internet-enabled device without prior written permission of the 

probation officer. Jones contends, for the first time on appeal, that these 

conditions do not meet the statutory requirements and the district court failed 

to adequately explain its reasons for imposing these conditions.

We review Jones’s claims of error for plain error. See United States v. 

Tang, 718 F.3d 476, 482 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 

134 (5th Cir. 2011). A district court’s discretion in imposing conditions of 

supervised release is subject to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). 

United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2013). Because it is debatable 

whether the aforementioned conditions satisfy these statutory requirements, 

any errors in their imposition are not plain. See Puckett v. United States, 556 

U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). 

Assuming arguendo that the district court plainly erred by not adequately 

explaining its reasons for imposing the aforementioned conditions, any error 

did not affect Jones’s substantial rights because Jones has not shown that 

providing reasons would have changed the outcome. See Tang, 718 F.3d at 

483. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51108 Document: 00513364731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2016
584 A.2d 211

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CEDRIC MCRAE.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.