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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000891915
<NAME> RECONDITIONED SYSTEMS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         756,455
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,288,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (32,121)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,038,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,331,883
<PP&E>                                         464,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                (194,548)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,730,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,430,468
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,587,580
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,287,426)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,730,622
<SALES>                                      7,822,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,822,153
<CGS>                                        5,792,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,478,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (51,142)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                395,291
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            395,291
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   395,291
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID FRANCIS CLARK, a/k/a PREZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00152-CCE-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Francis Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6190 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

David Francis Clark appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of 

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 

326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not 

abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United 

States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation 

required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6190 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 10.2**

**PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY**

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

**WHEREAS**, effective as of November 8, 2006, PlainsExploration & Production Company (the “Company”) entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) with Winston M. Talbert (the “Employee”); and 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and the Employee have agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth below; 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, the Company and the Employee agree that Paragraph 6(c)(vi) of the Agreement shall be amended by deleting the reference toSections 6(c)(iii) and (iv). 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Company and the Employee have executed this First Amendment on the26th day of April, 2007. 

 

**PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY**

By:
 
/s/ James C. Flores
 
James C. Flores
 
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board

**EMPLOYEE**

/s/ Winston M. Talbert

Winston M. Talbert
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          647,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    151,000
<COMMON>                                    21,966,577
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,764,662)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       389
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,313)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
No. 14,019.

#### Coffing *v.*Carnahan et al.

Judgment.— *Assignment in Writing.*— *Complaint*Averring.— Evidence.— Where a complaint for an injunction to restrain the seizure and sale of property under an execution issued on a judgment, on the ground that the judgment had been assigned by the judgment creditor and paid in full to the assignee, avers that the assignment was in writing, the plain, tiff is precluded from showing that it was by parol.

*Same.*— Loss *of Instrument.*— Failure *to Show.*— Secondary *Evidence.*— In such ease, in the absence of evidence showing the loss of the instrument, or that search was made for it at the proper place, secondary evidence can not be resorted to to show its contents.

From the Fountain Circuit Court.

(7. *M. McCabe,*for appellant.

*S. F. Wood,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The appellant alleges in his complaint that Daniel Osborne obtained a judgment against him before a justice of the peace; that an execution has been issued on the judgment, and that the property of the plaintiff will be seized and sold unless the parties are restrained by an injunction. The ground upon which the injunction is asked is that the judgment creditor, Osborne, assigned the judgment, by a writing, to Smith Coffing to whom the appellant paid it in full.

We shall only consider such questions as counsel have argued, and these arise on the motion for a new trial.

The appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to permit him to give parol evidence of the contents of the instrument under which Smith Coffing claims to be the assignee of the judgment, but there was no error in this ruling. The complaint avers that the assignment was in writing, and this precludes the plaintiff from showing that it was by parol. The instrument can not be regarded as a *428collateral one, since it is upon this writing — which is pleaded at length in the complaint — that the appellant’s cause of action depends. It is obvious that he can not succeed unless there was such a writing as he relies, on in his complaint, nor can he succeed without producing the instrument itself, or accounting for its absence. There is no evidence showing the loss of the instrument, nor is there any evidence showing that search was made for it at the proper place, and in the absence of such preliminary proof there was no right to resort to secondary evidence.

Filed March 1, 1890.

Without the production of the writing there was a lack of evidence essential to a recovery, and the trial court did right in rendering judgment in favor of the appellee.

Judgment affirmed.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 23 - 50350 **consolidated with** No. 23 - 50352

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff — Appellee **,** versus **Jose Castaneda -**  **Acevedo,** Defendant — Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:21 - CR - 50 - 1, 4:23 - CR - 30 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Davis, Willett,** an d **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Jose Castaneda - Acevedo appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal re - entry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), was well as the revocation of his term of supervised release related to a prior illegal re - entry conviction. Castan eda - Acevedo does not raise any issues in connection with the appeal of the revocation of his term of supervised release.

**_____________________** * T his opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50350 Document: 00516932846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/202323 - 50350 c/w No. 23 - 50352

2 Rather, he argues for the first time on appeal that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a s entence above the otherwise - applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Castaneda - Acevedo acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. In addition, Castaneda - Acevedo has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. This court has held that subsequent Su preme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez - Torres . See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Castaneda - Acevedo is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Castaneda - Acevedo ’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the judgment s are **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-50350 Document: 00516932846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,028,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 76,830,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            77,859,567
<PP&E>                                       2,293,605
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,059,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,689,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,363,012
<BONDS>                                     31,691,732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,511
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,494,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,689,584
<SALES>                                     32,007,826
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,007,826
<CGS>                                       27,926,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,926,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,793,292
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             556,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,229,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (498,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (731,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (731,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit






CONSENT TO SHARED-SACRIFICE REDUCTION IN SALARY
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impact on the business, operations, and employees of Aon plc and its subsidiaries and affiliates (“Aon”), I, Christa Davies, hereby knowingly and voluntarily consent to a shared-sacrifice reduction of my salary by fifty-percent (50%), beginning on May 1, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020 or such earlier or later date upon which Aon and I may agree in writing (the “Permissible Reduction Period”).  During the Permissible Reduction Period, I acknowledge and agree that the above-described reduction shall not (i) breach or be deemed to breach any provisions of any employment agreement, offer letter, or other agreement between myself and Aon, or (ii) trigger any severance or good reason (or the like) rights under any employment agreement, offer letter, or other agreement, plan, or program (including, without limitation, the Aon plc Amended and Restated Senior Executive Combined Severance and Change in Control Plan) through Aon that may apply to me. 
EXECUTIVE
Sign name:  /s/ Christa Davies    
Print name:  Christa Davies    
Date:  April 23, 2020    
AON PLC
Signed:    
Lisa Stevens
Chief People Officer


     1
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONCFO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Exploration & Production Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen A. Thorington, 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:



To the best of my knowledge, after
reasonable investigation:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 4, 2005.

/s/ Stephen A. ThoringtonStephen A. ThoringtonChief Financial Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID EMORY.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### GEORGE GEDULDIG v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BRUNSWICK.

November 30, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1005 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1005

   Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit certain 
   documents to the House of Representatives relating to the border 
  security policies, procedures, and activities as such relate to the 
  interdiction of families by the U.S. Border Patrol between ports of 
                                 entry.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2018

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi submitted the following resolution; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit certain 
   documents to the House of Representatives relating to the border 
  security policies, procedures, and activities as such relate to the 
  interdiction of families by the U.S. Border Patrol between ports of 
                                 entry.

    Resolved, That, not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution, the Secretary of Homeland Security is 
directed to transmit to the House of Representatives, to the extent 
that such information is in the possession of the Secretary, copies of 
any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication or 
any portion of any such communication of the U.S. Border Patrol that 
refers or relates to the interdiction of families between ports of 
entry, including the following:
            (1) U.S. Border Patrol policies, procedures, and activities 
        as such relate to the interdiction of families between ports of 
        entry.
            (2) Procedures disseminated within the U.S. Border Patrol 
        on how interdicted families, including families with small 
        children, are to be treated and processed.
            (3) All records made at or near the time that a family is 
        interdicted between ports of entry by the U.S. Border Patrol 
        from June 2016 through June 2018, regarding such interdiction, 
        including any such records or information regarding the 
        following:
                    (A) The ages of children interdicted and what 
                actions were taken with respect to such children.
                    (B) The number of criminal referrals made by the 
                U.S. Border Patrol, including for trafficking children.
                                 <all>
```
#### City of Gary *v.*Walter Archer.

[No. 3-1072A77.

Filed September 6, 1973.

Rehearing denied October 15, 1973.

Transfer denied February 19, 1974.]

*J. Robert Miertschin, Jr.,*Assistant City Attorney of Gary, for appellant.

*Max Cohen,*of Gary, *B. K. Delph,*of Hammond, for ap-pellee.

Staton, J.

Archer received a jury verdict of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00). Twenty-One Thousand Dollars ($21,000.00) of the judgment was an award of punitive damages. His action against the City of Gary and one of its police officers was for assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Punitive damages were requested. The City’s answer was a general denial and self-defense. After closing argument, the jury was given instructions six (6), seven (7) and nine (9) which related to punitive damages. No objection was made by the City to any of these instructions. The first objection to punitive *478damages being requested by Archer in his complaint or instructions was on appeal in the City’s motion to correct errors.

The issue attempted to be raised here for the first time on appeal is whether it is against public policy for the jury to award punitive damages against a municipality. Before reaching this issue, we must first determine whether the City waived the issue by failing to make any objection before or during trial.

Appeal of alleged errors during trial must be based upon an objection timely made during the trial. *Dudley Sports Co.*v. *Schmitt*(1972), 151 Ind. App. 217, 279 N.E.2d 266. This Court is without jurisdiction to consider questions raised for the first time on appeal. *Aocker*v. *Buell*(1970), 147 Ind. App. 422, 261 N.E.2d 894; *Monon Railroad*v. *New York Central Railroad Company*(1967), 141 Ind. App. 277, 227 N.E.2d 450.

Therefore, we must conclude that the City’s proposed issue of error has been waived. The judgment of the trial court should be and the same hereby is affirmed. Hoffman, C.J. and Sharp, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 300 N.E. 2d 687.
#### William Federspiel v. Edward Johnstone and Certain Logs and Timber of John McLennan, A. T. Bliss & Bro., and Bliss, Tyler & Son.

[See *ante,*303.]

*Log-lien proceedings-*

This case is ruled by the opinion filed in *Federspiel v. Johnstone, ante,*303.

Error to Arenac. (Cobb, J.)

Argued June 11, 1891.

Decided July 28, 1891.

Attachment under log-lien law of 1887. Defendant log-owners bring error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in *Federspiel v. Johnstone, ante,*303.

*F. W. Porter,*for appellants.

*Laicrence McHugh,*for plaintiff.

Morse, J.

This case is an appeal in the same suit as *Federspiel v. Johnstone,*87 Mich. 303. The objections to the judgment are confined to the service and return of the. writ of attachment, and are identical with those raised in the first case, and must be governed by the decision in that appeal.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.

Champlin, 0., J., McGrath and Long, JJ., concurred. Grant, J., did not sit.