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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         879,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,070,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   172,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,861,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,891,000
<PP&E>                                         478,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,012,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,369,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,259,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 18,942,000
<COMMON>                                    12,140,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,369,000
<SALES>                                      1,457,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,457,000
<CGS>                                        1,324,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,552,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,123,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,123,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1920

AN ACT

To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12

of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

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

2

S 1920 ES

1 SECTION 1. SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH

2 CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 11, UNITED STATES

3 CODE IS REENACTED.

4 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 149 of title I of division

5 C of Public Law 105–277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘January 1, 2004’’ each place

8 it appears and inserting ‘‘July 1, 2004’’; and

9 (2) in subsection (a)—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘June 30, 2003’’ and in11 serting ‘‘December 31, 2003’’; and

12 (B) by striking ‘‘July 1, 2003’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘January 1, 2004’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2004.

Passed the Senate November 25, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1920

AN ACT

To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is

reenacted.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40


             2000 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS INCENTIVE PLAN


PURPOSE: To reward Senior Vice President of Operations for achievement of
planned sales and planned controllable operating profit.

PLAN YEAR: The plan begins on December 27, 1999 and ends on December 31, 2000.

INCENTIVE PAY: The incentive pay pool is equal to a percentage of the Regional
Managers' incentive payout, a percent of salary for achievement of minimum sales
objectives, and a percent of salary for achievement of minimum controllable
operating profit objectives. See attached schedule.

INCENTIVE PAY ELIGIBILITY: Employed by Fresh Choice on the date incentive checks
are calculated.

PLAN INTENT: Fresh Choice intends to maintain the plan under the terms listed
above. However, Fresh Choice reserves the right to modify or terminate the plan
at any time.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE** Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among RBS COMMERCIAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C23 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 1. A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel BoberDaniel BoberExecutive Vice PresidentWells Fargo Bank  
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Redhook
Ale Brewery, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, 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; and

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

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: March 31, 2006

                                           BY: /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                    David J. Mickelson
                                                    President,
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    and Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) upon my best knowledge and belief
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences,
Inc.

|                     |                                                                                                                | 
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated:  May 15, 2009 | /s/ Edward J. Quilty                                                                                           | 
|                     | Edward J. Quilty
        Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### M’Gillicuddy, Administrator, *v.*Cook.

*Tuesday, November 19.*

Jl., on his death-bed, and about three days before he died, delivered to *B.*a certain sum of money for his, *JUs*wife, which *B.*said he would send to her. *Held,*that a suit for the money could not be sustained, on these facts, by the administrator of *A.*against *B.*

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

Assumpsit. On the trial of this cause m the Circuit Court, the plaintiff proved that in *July,*1835, his intestate, *Eallihan,*being then on his death-bed, delivered to the defendant a sum of money, supposed to be fifty dollars, to be sent to the uncle of *Eallihan,*in *Ireland,*for the use of his *(Eds)*wife. The defendant received the money and said he would send it as directed. About three days thereafter, *Eallihan*died. This was all the testimony in the case, and, upon it, the Circuit Court gave judgment for the defendant.

In whatever light we view this case, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed. If the delivery to the defendant was a naked bailment, countermandable at the pleasure of *Eallihan*or his administrator, an action will not lie against the defendant until he is notified of the countei-mand, and a return of the property demanded. Story on Bailment, ch. 2, sec. 107. Were the law otherwise, a bailee who undertakes without compensation to convey money or *180other property from one man to another, might be sued and harassed by the bailor- without having committed any wrong whatever. Or if it is to be regarded as a gift *mortis*causa, the property vested in the wife by the delivery to the defendant, it was in the nature of a legacy to her, and the plaintiff, as he has not shown that it is needed for the payment of debts, has no claim upon it. 1 Ch, Gen.. Pr. 105.—*Miller*v. Miller, 3 P. Will. 356.

*H.*Cooper, for the plaintiff.

*T.*Johnson, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 3 *per cent.*damages and costs.
#### Beeman *v.*The State, on the Relation of Stevens.

Tuesday, *July*2.

The complaint, in a case of bastardy, need, not state where the mother of the child resides.

It will be presumed in such case, the record not showing the contrary, that the justice did his duty.

The judgment against the defendant in such case may be, that he pay the mother, for the support of the child, a certain sum *per annum*for five years, &c.

ERROR to the *Owen*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

This was a case of bastardy. The complaint was made to the justice of the peace by the mother of the child, which was returned with the proceedings thereon to the Circuit Court. On the plea of not guilty, the jury found the defendant below to be the father of the child. The judgment of the Court was that the defendant pay to the mother, for the support of the child, the sum of 25 dollars *per annum*for five years, &c.

The errors assigned are, 1. That the complaint does not state that the complainant is a resident of *Owen*county, nor of the state of *Indiana.*2. That the justice of the peace, *166when he adjudged the defendant to be the father’ of the child, did not give him an opportunity of compromising with the mother, and indemnifying the township, before he required him to enter into recognizance to appear before the Circuit Court. 3. That the Circuit Court erred in directing the money to be paid to the mother for the benefit of the child, without requiring security for the performance of the trust.

*C. P. Hester,*for the plaintiff.

*W. Quarles,*for the defendant.

The statute does not require the complaint to show the residence of the mother of the child. If the transcript of the proceedings before the justice of the peace shows that she resided within the state, it is sufficient. This point was so decided in the case of *The State*v. Allen, 4 Blackf. 269.

On the second point made, the record is silent. We do not know whether the defendant refused to settle with the mother of the child and indemnify the township, or whether he was denied the opportunity of doing so. We cannot presume the latter. Unless the contrary be made manifest by the record, we will presume that the justice of the peace did his duty. This point was also made in the case last-cited, and was overruled by the Court.

The question arising on the third error assigned was under the consideration of this Court in the case of *Cooper*v. *The State, 4*Blackf. 316; and it was there decided that a judgment similar to the judgment in this case was well enough. The order of the Court in the case before us is, that the money be paid to the mother for the maintenance of the child. Under that order the mother, or any other person having the care and custody of the child, may, by *scire facias*or debt, recover the instalments as they become due. *Harrington et al.*v. *Ferguson,*2 Blackf. 42.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 7, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS TOLLIVER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v. 

MICHAEL HEREDIA, WARDEN; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW

MEXICO,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-2038

(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00918-JCH-WPL)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2038 Document: 01018417373 Date Filed: 05/07/2010 Page: 1
#### Benjamin WEATHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 79-2501

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 31, 1980.

Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, 11th Judicial Circuit of Fla., Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.

Joel D. Rosenblatt, Florida Regional Service Center, Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, FAY and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.

PER CURIAM:

The denial of relief is affirmed for those reasons set forth in Judge Eaton’s Order of Dismissal dated May 21, 1979 and reported at 486 F.Supp. 934.
Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303) 844-3157

March 03, 2010

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Mr. Stephen R. McCaughey

McCaughey & Metos 

10 West Broadway

Suite 650

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

RE: 09-4143, United States v. Howard

Dist/Ag docket: 1:08-CR-00045-DB-1

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed is a copy of the order and judgment.

Please contact this office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of the Court 

cc: Elizabethanne Claire Stevens

EAS/lab

Appellate Case: 09-4143 Document: 01018376980 Date Filed: 03/03/2010 Page: 1
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 17 , 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00876

- CR

ALEX MELVIN WADE, JR

. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 285866

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

Appellant Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. filed a “petition for writ of error coram nobis” in the district court, challenging the validity of the court ’ s 1978 judgment finding appellant guilty of the offense of theft. The district court denied appellant’s petition and appellant has filed a pro se notice of appeal from that order.
The purpose of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring before the court rendering the judgment matters of fact which, if known at the time the judgment2

was rendered, would have prevented its rendition. Ex parte McKenzie, 115 Tex. Crim. 315, 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930). The C ourt of C riminal
A ppeals of Texas has long held that the writ has no application in this State. See Ex parte Massey, 157 Tex. Crim. 491, 249 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952).
Even if the motion could be construed as a request for habeas corpus relief, however, this court would not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Only the
Court of Crim inal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to post

- conviction relief from a final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 11

. 07 ; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding
that article 11

. 07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

P ER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison

. Do Not Publish

C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
#### Francis O. Gaffney, Prosecuting Attorney, v. Fred H. Aldrich, Circuit Judge of Missaukee County.

*Criminal- law*— Preliminary *examination*— Discharge—Jeopardy.

A discharge by a justice of the peace, upon the examination of a person charged with crime, is not a bar to his subsequent arrest, examination, and trial for the same offense, when the testimony upon both examinations is substantially the same. *People v. Pline,*61 Mich. 247.

*Mandamus.'*

Submitted April 8, 1891.

Granted April 15, 1891.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondent to *139vacate an order quashing an information. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*A. A.*Ellis, Attorney General, for relator.

' *E. E. McIntyre,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The sole question in this ease is whether a discharge by a justice of the peace, upon the examination of a person charged with crime, constitutes a bar to his subsequent arrest, examination, and trial for the same offense, when the testimony upon the second examination is substantially the same as that produced upon the first.

We think the case is ruled by the principle enunciated in *People v. Pline,*61 Mich. 247. No proceeding in a criminal case can operate as a bar to further prosecution until the accused has been put in jeopardy, and this cannot occur until he has been placed upon trial. The law presumes that prosecuting attorneys, in bringing and conducting such examinations, will, act in good faith towards both the people and the accused, and that they will not subject an accused person to a second examination without good reason. The only questions upon such examination are—

■1. Has a crime been committed?

2. Is there probable cause shown by the evidence to believe the prisoner guilty?

The rule contended for by the respondent would seriously cripple the proper administration of the criminal law in ways which will readily suggest themselves to any one.

The order of the circuit court, quashing the information, must be set aside, and the court directed to proceed with the trial of the accused.
Exhibit 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Pacult, chief executive office and chief financial officer of
Belmont Capital Management, Inc., the general partner of Bromwell Financial
Fund, Limited Partnership (the "Fund" or the "Registrant"), do hereby certify
that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Fund;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

  (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

  (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

  (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


  (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

  (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult

Date: August 8, 2005