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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF KNOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE
RELATED COMBINED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIREYT BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,699,996
<SECURITIES>                               227,880,923
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,692,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                    84,586
<INVENTORY>                                 17,855,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           198,533,376
<PP&E>                                      91,948,404
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,338,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             318,952,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,873,614
<BONDS>                                    256,360,038
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        500
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,260,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               318,952,795
<SALES>                                      9,158,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,158,653
<CGS>                                        3,936,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,796,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,744,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,054,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (15,382,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (15,382,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (15,382,152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (307.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (307.74)
        

</TABLE>
CASH W. PAWLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

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. 1D17-1665

Opinion filed June 6, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Cash W. Pawley, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lateasha L. Powell, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Florida Department of 

Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); 

Banks v. State, 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

WINOKUR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Mavis OFORI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.

No. 04-1426.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 2004.

Decided Jan. 10, 2005.

Jerzy Guzior, Saliterman *&*Siefferman, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Emily Anne Radford, James A. Hunolt, Papú Sandhu, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*492PER CURIAM.

Mavis Ofori, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Ofori challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and argues that her case was not appropriate for an affirmance without opinion.

Ofori’s argument regarding the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion is unreviewable. *See Ngure v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 975, 981-88 (8th Cir.2004) (decision whether to employ affirmance-without-opinion procedure in particular case is committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review).

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on Ofori’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. *See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft,*360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review). The IJ discredited Ofori’s testimony about past persecution she suffered because, among other things, some of her allegations were implausible and unsupported by any documentary evidence. As the IJ’s credibility finding rested on specific, cogent reasons for disbelief, we defer to the finding. *See Nyama v. Ashcroft,*357 F.3d 812, 816-17 (8th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (deference standard); *Rucu-Roherti v. INS,*177 F.3d 669, 670 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (upholding adverse credibility determination where alien’s allegations were implausible and alien failed to present corroborating evidence). In addition, because Ofori failed to meet the burden of proof on her asylum claim, her application for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well, *see Kratchmarov v. Heston,*172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir.1999) (withholding-of-removal standard is more difficult to meet than asylum standard); and there is no basis in the record for relief under the CAT, *see Ngure,*367 F.3d at 922-93 (discussing requirements for CAT relief).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

1

. The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. See *Dominguez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 678, 679 n. 1 (8th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004).
May 19, 2020

MEMORANDUM 

To: State Weights and Measures Directors and Other Interested Parties

From: Dr. Douglas Olson

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures 

Subject: Notice Concerning the 2021 Edition of NIST Handbooks

The NIST Office of Weights and Measures does not currently plan to publish 2021 Editions of the 

NIST Handbooks listed below. The 2020 Editions of these NIST Handbooks shall continue in 

effect and shall be accepted for use until NIST publishes new editions. If the status of the NIST 

Handbooks changes, such as a publication during the 2021 calendar year, interested parties will 

receive an updated notification. Future editions of these NIST Handbooks will supersede those 

listed below. This decision was based in part on the April 30, 2020, announcement by the Board 

of Directors of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) to cancel its 2020 

Annual Meeting.

NOTICE

Effective January 1, 2021, the 2020 Editions of the following NIST Handbooks shall continue in 

effect. They, except insofar as amended or rejected by regulation, shall be used in the enforcement 

of weights and measures laws and regulations in any jurisdiction which, by incorporation-byreference in law; regulation; or policy, adopts the latest or most current edition of any of these 

NIST Handbooks (available free of charge).

• NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances and Other Technical Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices (2020)

• NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and 

Fuel Quality (2020)

• NIST Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods (2020)

Some jurisdictions automatically adopt the latest or current edition of these NIST Handbooks

through incorporation-by-reference by law; regulation; or policy. Other jurisdictions adopt specific 

editions and do not automatically allow the use of later editions. This notice is not intended to 

supersede the laws; regulations; or policies of any regulatory agency in regard to the edition of any

NIST Handbook it has adopted (e.g., if a state has adopted the 2014 edition of a NIST Handbook 

in law or regulation it is the 2014 edition that must be used not the 2020 editions listed above). 

Please direct questions to the NIST Office of Weights and Measures at (301) 975-4004 or at 

owm@nist.gov.
#### Gustavus Schurman, Admr., *v.*C. J. Jones.

Landlord and Tenant — Sub-Tenant in Possession by Consent of Landlord — ■ Sub-Tenant Forced to Abandon Premises by Landlord.

Where a sub-tenant is in possession with the consent of the landlord, and if without any breach of the terms of the lease, he causes him to abandon the premises he should be held to the consequences of his own act.

*98APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

February 2, 1872.

*I. R. Greene, for appellant.*

*Pirtle & Caruth, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters.

The first instruction asked 'by appellant should not have been given because by the terms of the lease the tenant was authorized to sub-let the premises by the parol consent of the landlord, and although the lease is contradictory, still the letter of appellant’s intestate was his written consent under certain conditions, so that in any event the instruction should not have been given without qualification.

The second one was also overruled properly, because it failed to set forth the conditions and to refer to the jury the question whether or not they believed from the evidence the conditions were complied with.

The evidence shows pretty conclusively that the sub-tenants were in possession with the consent of the landlord, and if without any breach of the terms of the lease he caused them to abandon the premises he should be held to the consequences of his own voluntary act.

Judgment affirmed.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 300

Expressing Support for a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 31, 1997

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. STARK, Ms. CARSON, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. FROST, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms.

LOFGREN, Mr. COYNE, Mrs. THURMAN, Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Mr.

DELLUMS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. CLAY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of

Texas, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. STOKES, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. RUSH, Mr.

DIXON, Mr. FLAKE, Ms. FURSE, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs.

CLAYTON, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Mr. TORRES) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight

RESOLUTION

Expressing Support for a National Week of Reflection and

Tolerance.

Whereas America is a pluralistic country comprised of different races, genders, ethnic groups, religions, and

creeds;

Whereas our Nation, founded on the principles of tolerance,

diversity, justice, and equality, should affirm these common values and principles; and

Whereas Americans should reflect on the importance of understanding and tolerance in our pluralistic country:

Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 300 IH

1 Resolved, That a National Week of Reflection and

2 Tolerance should be established encouraging communities

3 and institutions around the Nation to engage in events

4 and activities that are reflective, educational, celebratory,

5 and healing as they relate to diversity among Americans.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21.1

QC Holdings, Inc.

A Kansas corporation



|                                                 |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|QC Financial Services, Inc.                      |  | Missouri                     
|QC Services, Inc.                                |  | Kansas                       
|QC Properties, LLC (2)                           |  | Kansas                       
|QC Financial Services of California, Inc. (2)    |  | California                   
|QC Financial Services of Texas, Inc. (2)         |  | Kansas                       
|Express Check Advance of South Carolina, LLC (2) |  | Tennessee                    
|Financial Services of North Carolina, Inc. (2)   |  | Delaware                     
|QC Advance, Inc. (2)                             |  | Missouri                     
|Cash Title Loans, Inc. (2)                       |  | Missouri                     

---

|(1) | All subsidiaries are 100% owned.
|--- | --------------------------------

|(2) | Subsidiary of QC Financial Services, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------
Emergency Exits 
VCAT Agenda Review 

October 28-29, 2008
 

Theme: NIST Roles in Innovation and NIST’s Strateg

Day 1 

3⁄4 NIST Deputy Director’s Update (NIST Status, Safety, and V3⁄4 Session I: NIST’s Roles in Innovation (Review and Discuss3⁄4 Session II: External Relationships 

• Review of NIST’s Strategic Partnerships • Benefits of the JILA Partnership to Technology Advancemen• NIST& SRC Nanoelectronics Research Initiative: Partnership • Discussion of the Value, Types, and Roles of NIST’s Partner

3⁄4 Laboratory Tours (Boulder Labs and JILA)
 

Day 2 

3⁄4 Session III: NIST’s Strategic Plan 

• Overview of NIST’s Strategic Plan • Update on Biosciences Strategic Plan • NIST’s Nanotechnology Strategy • NIST Strategic Facilities Plan • Summary of NIST’s Strategic Planning and Discussion
 

3⁄4 Session IV: VCAT Feedback for Annual Report
 
New VCAT Member
 

Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer University of California, Berkeley Director Emeritus Center for Information Technology Research in the Science 

•	 Former head of the Computer and Information Science and Engin

Directorate at NSF 

•	 Founder and Past Director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Ge

Robotics and Active Sensory Perception Lab 

•	 Member of the National Academy of Engineering and the National 

Academy of Science Institute of Medicine 

•	 Named as one of the 50 most influential women in science in the 

November 22 issue of Discover Magazine 

•	 Served on the President’s Information Technology Advisory Comm

(PITAC)
H. Res. 32

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 21, 1997.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees:

COMMITTEE ON BANKING: Mr. LaTourette to rank following Mr. Sessions.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE: Mr.

Paul, Mr. Bob Schaffer of Colorado, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Upton, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Hilleary, and

Mr. Scarborough, all to rank in the named order following

Mr. Norwood of Georgia.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT: Mr. Barr of Georgia to rank following Mr.

Snowbarger.

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Mr. Brady

to rank following Mr. Moran of Kansas.

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Crapo to rank following Mr. Gibbons.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Fawell,

Mrs. Morella, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rohrabacher,
2

•HRES 32

Mr. Schiff, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bartlett

of Maryland, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Davis, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ewing, Mr.

Pickering, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Brady, and Mr. Cook.

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Combest, Mr.

Hefley, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs. Smith

of Washington, Mr. LoBiondo, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Jones, Mr.

Souder, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Ryun, Mr. Snowbarger, Mr.

Pappas, Mr. English, Mr. McIntosh, and Mrs. Emerson.

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Smith of New

Jersey, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Spence, Mr. Everett, Mr. Buyer,

Mr. Quinn, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Dan Schaefer of

Colorado, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hayworth, and Mrs. Chenoweth.

Attest:

Clerk.
Pathmark Stores, Inc. Form 10-Q; May 1, 2004; Exhibit 10.2





Exhibit 10.2





AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
  TO
  SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT




          This Amendment Number 1 to
Supplemental Retirement Agreement is made and entered into as of the 29th day  of March,
2004, by and between PATHMARK STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Frank Vitrano  (the “Executive”), residing at 2 Thatchwood Court, North
Brunswick, New Jersey 08902.


          WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive are parties to the Supplemental Retirement Agreement between the  Company
and the Executive dated as of March 1, 2000 (the “Agreement”);


          WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive desire to make certain amendments to the Agreement, as  hereinafter set
forth;


          NOW, THEREFORE, for good
and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company  and the
Executive agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


          (1)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.2A to  read as
follows:


          1.2A “Applicable
Dollar Amount” means $250,000; provided, however, that such amount shall be
increased to $440,000 on the earliest to occur of (i) January 1, 2007, (ii) death, (iii)
Disability, or (iv) a Change of Control, in each case so long as Executive is employed
by the Company on such date.



          (2)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.5A to  read as
follows:


          1.5A “Change of
Control” means a Change of Control as defined in the Pathmark Stores, Inc. 2000
Employee Equity Plan as amended as of June 13, 2002.



          (3)  Section 2.a. of the
Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


          a.  “Unreduced
Supplemental Retirement Benefit” is equal to the sum of 30% of the  Executive’s
Average Final Compensation after completion of 10 years of Vesting Service, plus 1% of
the  Executive’s Average Final Compensation multiplied by each additional year of
Vesting Service in excess  of 10; provided, however, that in no event shall the Executive’s
Unreduced Supplemental Retirement  Benefit exceed the lesser of (i) 40% of his Average
Final Compensation, or (ii) the Applicable Dollar  Amount; and








          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment Number 1 to Supplemental  Retirement
Agreement to be executed effective as of the 29th day of  March, 2004.



		 PATHMARK STORES, INC.
	ATTEST:


	/s/ Marc A. Strassler

Marc A. Strassler

Secretary

	By 	/s/ Eileen R. Scott 

        Eileen R. Scott

       Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Frank G. Vitrano

EXECUTIVE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HYDRAFLOW INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03661

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on August 25, 2020 [43] in favor 

of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants Identified in Amended Schedule A. Plaintiffs acknowledge 

payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to release this 

judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to the following Defendants:

NO. DEFENDANT

95 climbthefall

6 Yuyao Norton Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to above identified 

Defendants is hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed 

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment.

Case: 1:20-cv-03661 Document #: 55 Filed: 10/19/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1323
DA TED: October 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Yanling Jiang (Bar No. 6309336) 

JiangIP LLC 

111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6297

Email: yanling@jiangip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Subscribed and sworn before me by Yanling Jiang, on this 16th of October, 2020.

Given under by hand and notarial seal. 

MICHAEL SEVERT 

Official Seal 

1 Notary Public • State of Illinois 

, My Commis sion Expires Sep 11, 2023 

Notary Public 

State of :tl ---------

County of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03661 Document #: 55 Filed: 10/19/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1324
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 2, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY SHAUN JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-6372

(D.C. No. 5:94-CR-00064-C-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

Timothy Johnson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion for a

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because we agree with

the district court that Mr. Johnson was ineligible for any reduction, we affirm.

In 1994, a jury convicted Mr. Johnson of numerous charges relating to a

conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court found his guidelines range to

be 360 months to life imprisonment and sentenced him to 410 months’

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
imprisonment. After the promulgation of Amendments 706 and 782 to the

Guidelines, Mr. Johnson filed motions to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582. The district court dismissed his motions for lack of jurisdiction, finding

that applying the amendments would not yield a lower guidelines range.

We see no error in the district court’s analysis. Mr. Johnson does not

dispute that his amended guidelines range would remain 360 months to life after

applying the amendments. Nor does he contest the rule that a district court has no

authority to grant a § 3582 motion if the relevant amendments do “not have the

effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” USSG

§ 1B1.10(2)(a)(B); see, e.g., United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th

Cir. 2009). Indeed, Mr. Johnson does not explain what relief he seeks from this

court. He never explicitly requests, for example, reversal of the district court’s

decision. But see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (requiring appellant’s brief to contain

“a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought”). And the principal

argument he seems to advance, a constitutional attack against his sentence, is not

properly raised in a § 3582 motion. See United States v. Gay, 771 F.3d 681,

685–86 (10th Cir. 2014). In light of all this, we have no basis to overturn the

district court’s dismissals. 

- 2 -
AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Chief Judge

- 3 -