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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             517
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,602
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,999
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          23,158
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            23,204
<LOANS>                                         87,221
<ALLOWANCE>                                        710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,542
<DEPOSITS>                                     106,786
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,133
<LONG-TERM>                                     18,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,123
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 146,542
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,401
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,819
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,220
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,480
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,231
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,989
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    850
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       537
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.89
<LOANS-NON>                                        651
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   686
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  710
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               539
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            171

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM WAHL.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification granted; the Order of the Appellate Division is summarily reversed, and the July 18,1985, judgment of conviction and sentence is reinstated. See *State v. Hartye,*105 *N.J.*411 (1987).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 987 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 

higher wages to their employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2017 

Mr. ROKITA (for himself, Mr. BARR, Mr. OLSON, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. 

GROTHMAN, and Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit 

employers to pay higher wages to their employees. 

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 ‘‘Rewarding Achieve5 ment and Incentivizing Successful Employees Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘RAISE Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES. 

8 Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

9 U.S.C. 159(a)) is amended— 

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 987 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization’s exclusive 

3 representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and 

4 conditions of any collective bargaining contract or agree5 ment then in effect, nothing in either— 

6 ‘‘(A) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or 

7 ‘‘(B) a collective bargaining contract or agree8 ment renewed or entered into after the date of en9 actment of the RAISE Act, 

10 shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the 

11 unit greater wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by 

12 reason of, his or her services as an employee of such em13 ployer, than provided for in such contract or agreement.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted and Memorandum Opinion filed 

January 24, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01105-CV

IN RE DAVID HOSSIEN MERRIKH, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

On December 11, 2012, relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Roy L. 

Moore, presiding judge of the 245th District Court of Harris County to vacate his 

Order of Enforcement by Contempt and Commitment, signed October 5, 2012. 

We ordered relator released upon the posting of a bond pending a decision in 

this case. A response was requested from the real party in interest, Jamileh 
2

Merrikh, to be filed on or before January 11, 2012. As of this date, no response has 

been filed.

An original habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a contempt 

judgment. Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967). The purpose of a 

writ of habeas corpus is not to determine the guilt of the contemnor, but only to 

determine whether he was afforded due process of law or if the order of contempt 

is void. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.1979). A court will issue a 

writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void, Ex parte 

Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.1983), or if the contempt order itself is void. 

Gordon, 584 S.W.2d at 688. An order is void if it is beyond the power of the court 

to enter it, or if it deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law. Ex 

parte Barlow, 899 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, orig. 

proceeding).

In his petition, relator complains of that portion of the order imposing 

incarceration for criminal contempt. If contempt is requested within a motion for 

enforcement, the motion must also include the portion of the order allegedly 

violated, each date of alleged contempt, the amount due, and any amount paid. 

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.002(b)(2) (Vernon Supp.1998). “The purpose of this 

section is to provide a respondent with proper notice of the allegations of contempt 

for which he must prepare a defense at the hearing on the motion.” See In re 

Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding)

(citing Ex parte Conoly, 732 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, orig. 

proceeding)). If the order fails to provide such notice, the punitive portion of the 

order is void. See Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d at 395. The record contains evidence 
3

that some payments were made but neither the motion to enforce nor the order 

reflects payments made. 

Accordingly, we grant relator's petition and vacate the trial court's order 

holding him in contempt and ordering that he be incarcerated. We further order 

relator released from the bond set by this court on December 23, 2012, and order 

relator discharged from custody.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0063]


Recovery Policy RP9524.2, Landslides and Slope Stability Related 
to Public Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the final Recovery Policy 
RP9524.2, Landslides and Slope Stability Related to Public Facilities, 
which is being issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA).

DATES: This policy is effective October 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This final policy is available online at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2010-0063 and on FEMA's Web 
site at http://www.fema.gov. You may also view a hard copy of the final 
policy at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Byron Mason, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, phone 202-
646-4368, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e5c676c717030537f6d71705e7a766d30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02407b706d6c2c4f63716d6c42666a712c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This policy determines the eligibility of 
emergency work to protect eligible facilities threatened by landslides 
or slope failures; as well as the eligibility of permanent repairs to 
eligible facilities damaged by landslides or slopes that failed during 
an event that resulted in a Presidentially-declared emergency or major 
disaster.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 5121-5207.

Robert Farmer,
Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-26703 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Sitemap

## January 21, 2013

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2013
- 01
- January 21, 2013

            - Curiosity in the Inaugural Parade
            - Orion in the Inaugural Parade
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May
31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Chief Financial 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:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



July 8, 2005



/s/ Philip S. Chan

Philip S. Chan

Chief Financial Officer



This certification is made solely pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for any other purpose.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KATHRYN DANA PAPP,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 611 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
MSHA 

QUARTERLY 

STAKEHOLDER 

MEETING 

LOCATION: 201 12th Street South Arlington, VA

7th Floor Conference Room 

DATE: March 11, 2024

TIME: 2:00 p.m. E.S.T. 

Join from the meeting link.

Join by phone:1-877-465-7975 US Toll Free

Access Code: 2824 462 0144#

AGENDA 

I. WELCOMING 

REMARKS

Assistant Secretary Christopher Williamson – 3 Minutes

II. STAKEHOLDER 

PRESENTATIONS

Chris Atkins, Matrix – 20 Minutes

Q&A – 5 Minutes

Wayne Persinger with Alpha Natural Resources – 20 Minutes

Q&A – 5 Minutes

III. WRITTEN SAFETY 

PROGRAM ON 

SURFACE MOBILE 

EQUIPMENT

MSHA presentation on Surface Mobile Rule – 25 Minutes 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health 

Patricia W. Silvey, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations 

Mine Safety and Health Enforcement 

Brian Goepfert, Administrator, and Timothy Watkins, Deputy Administrator

Q&A – 5 Minutes

IV. LAUNCH MSHA’s Health Locator Tool – 2 Minutes

William Drexler

V. GENERAL Q&A Q&A – 20 Minutes
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10563

Summary Calendar

ALEJANDRO ALBERTO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CAPTAIN CHARLES R. HORSLEY, Captain, Preston E. Smith Unit; WESLEY

L. SLOAN, Correctional Officer, Preston E. Smith Unit; TAMBRINA L.

WRIGHT, Counsel Substitute, Preston E. Smith Unit,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CV-244

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Alejandro Alberto Martinez, Texas prisoner # 1362767, filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint against various prison officials and prison counsel challenging

a disciplinary proceeding against him resulting in a loss of good time credits and

commissary and recreation privileges. He sought monetary damages as well as

unspecified injunctive, declaratory, and prospective relief. The district court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 12, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-10563 Document: 00511291752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2010
No. 10-10563

dismissed Martinez’s suit as frivolous on the basis that it is barred under the

doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Martinez now appeals.

A prisoner may not seek monetary damages or declaratory relief under

§ 1983 based on the procedures used in a disciplinary conviction until that

disciplinary conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared

invalid if a favorable judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

disciplinary conviction. Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en

banc); Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. A prisoner also may not recover good time

credits in a § 1983 suit. Clarke, 154 F.3d at 189. Martinez has failed to specify

what prospective relief he seeks.

In light of the foregoing, Martinez’s appeal is frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Thus, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes

of the in forma pauperis (IFP) provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the

district court’s dismissal of Martinez’s complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We have also dismissed as frivolous

Martinez’s appeal in Case No. 10-10540. Accordingly, Martinez has accumulated

more than three strikes and is now barred from proceeding IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 US.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.

2

Case: 10-10563 Document: 00511291752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2010
EX-10.2





 Exhibit 10.2 

First Amendment to Employment Agreement 

This First Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of April 26, 2020, by and
between USA Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, (the “Corporation”) and Donald W. Layden, Jr. (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive have previously entered into an employment agreement, dated as of February 28, 2020 (the
“Employment Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Corporation and the Executive agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

1. The last sentence of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the following two sentences are inserted in lieu thereof: 

Upon termination of the Executive’s employment hereunder for any reason, unless otherwise expressly provided by the Board, the Executive
shall be deemed to have resigned from all positions that the Executive holds as an officer or employee of the Corporation or any of its affiliates, other than as a member of the Board (or a committee thereof). Notwithstanding any other provision in
the Agreement to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement or otherwise shall require the Executive to resign as a member of the Board (or any committee thereof), including in the event of the termination of the Executive’s employment with the
Corporation for any reason. 
 2. In all other respects, the Employment Agreement as drafted is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force
and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Corporation and Officer hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the date first written above.

  

					
	USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	  		  	
			
	 /s/ Sunil Sabharwal
	  		  	 /s/ Donald W. Layden, Jr.

	Sunil Sabharwal, Chair of the Board	  		  	Donald W. Layden, Jr.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10495 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BETTY JEAN COLE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(5:00-CR-9-ALL-C)

December 8, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Concerning Betty Jean Cole’s conviction and sentence for

poss ession of cocaine with intent to distribute, based on her guilty plea, her appointed counsel has moved for leave to withdraw
and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Cole was notified of counsel’s motion and brief,
but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record
and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Consequently, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is2

GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                       755
<INVENTORY>                                      3,751
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,380
<PP&E>                                          11,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,754
<SALES>                                         22,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,622
<CGS>                                            9,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (608)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,008
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,008
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DONALD JAMES KONSHUK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30393

D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00043-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Donald James Konshuk appeals from the 175-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

FILED

JUL 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-30393

Konshuk contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by

failing to provide individualized reasons for imposing the sentence or address the

non-frivolous arguments in support of a lower sentence. He further contends that

the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district

court did not procedurally err, and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances,

the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.