alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                               |   | 2006   |   |   | 2007   |   |   | 2008 (a) |   |   | 2009 (a) |    |   | 2010 (a) |    |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------|--------|--------|----------|---------|--------|----------|---------|
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |
| Fixed Charges:                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                   |   | $      | 28,813 |   |   | $      | 29,167 |     |   | $      | 26,003   |    |   | $        | 32,590  |   |   | $ | 37,487 |   |
| Capitalized interest               |   |   | 166    |   |   |   | 252    |     |   |   | 205      |    |   |     | 35      |   |   |   | 9 |   |
| Interest portion of rent expense   |   |   | 965    |   |   |   | 1,107  |     |   |   | 1,266    |    |   |     | 1,377   |   |   |   | 1,393 |   |
| Total Fixed Charges                |   | $      | 29,944 |   |   | $      | 30,526 |     |   | $      | 27,474   |    |   | $        | 34,002  |   |   | $ | 38,889 |   |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings:                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Pretax income                      |   | $      | 1,709  |   |   | $      | (941   | )   |   | $      | (51,531  | )       |   | $        | (36,632 | ) |   | $ | (49,965 | ) |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add fixed charges                  |   |   | 29,944 |   |   |   | 30,526 |     |   |   | 27,474   |    |   |     | 34,002  |   |   |   | 38,889 |   |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Subtract capitalized interest      |   |   | (166   | )      |   |   | (252   | )        |   |   | (205     | )       |   |     | (35     | ) |   |   | (9 | ) |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total Earnings                     |   | $      | 31,487 |   |   | $      | 29,333 |     |   | $      | (24,262  | )  |   | $        | (2,665  | ) |   | $ | (11,085 | ) |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |     |   |   |     |    |   |     |    |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |   |   | 1.1    |   |   |   | 1.0    |     |   |   | -0.9     |    |   |     | -0.1    |   |   |   | -0.3 |   |

----
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1(d)


                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
                             OF LAREDO THEATRE, LTD.


         This Amendment to Management Agreement (the "Amendment") is effective
as of December 10, 2003 (the "Effective Date") by and between CNMK Texas
Properties, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership as successor in interest to
Cinemark USA, Inc. ("Manager"), and Laredo Theatre, Ltd., a Texas limited
partnership ("Owner").


                                    RECITALS:

         A. Owner and Manager are parties to that certain Management Agreement
effective as of December 10, 1993 (the "Original Agreement").

         B. The parties hereto desire to amend the Original Agreement to extend
its term in accordance with the provisions of this Amendment.

         C. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein
shall have the same meanings as in the Original Agreement unless otherwise
defined herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in consideration of the above
premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

         1. Extension of Term. The parties hereto agree that Section 5(a) of the
Original Agreement is hereby amended to renew and extend the term of the
Original Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the Effective Date of
this Amendment, which term will expire on December 10, 2008.

         2. Ratification. Except as hereby expressly amended, the Original
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and
confirmed in all respects on and as of the date hereof.




                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.


                              CNMK TEXAS PROPERTIES, LTD.

                              By:  SUNNYMEAD CINEMA CORP.,
                                   its General Partner


                              By:  /s/ Michael Cavalier
                                   --------------------------------------------
                              Name: Michael Cavalier
                              Title: Vice President-General Counsel



                              LAREDO THEATRE, LTD.

                              By:  CNMK TEXAS PROPERTIES, LTD.,
                                   its General Partner

                                      By:  SUNNYMEAD CINEMA CORP.,
                                           its General Partner

                                       By:  /s/ Michael Cavalier
                                            -----------------------------------
                                       Name:  Michael Cavalier
                                       Title: Vice President-General Counsel





                                       2
#### MOBA, B.V., Staalkat, B.V., and FPS Food Processing Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DIAMOND AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1622.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

*732ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG FUNDING, LLC FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         10,795
<SECURITIES>                                   0 <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0 <F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    0 <F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,607
<PP&E>                                         0 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0 <F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,116
<BONDS>                                        4,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          128,331
<PREFERRED>                                    0 <F1>
<COMMON>                                       0 <F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,542
<SALES>                                        0 <F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0 <F1>
<CGS>                                          0 <F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0 <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0 <F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (578)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,943
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0 <F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,943
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0 <F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0 <F1>
<CHANGES>                                      0 <F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,943
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0 <F1>




</TABLE>
[No. 1761.]

#### Henry McGrew *v.*The State.

1. Resisting Legal Process.— Information, to be sufficient to charge the offense denounced by article 222 of the Penal Code, must allege that the legal warrant, the execution of which was resisted, was a warrant *of arrest;*and it must further show that such legal warrant of arrest was addressed to an officer in a criminal case. Such essential allegations cannot be inferred.

3. Same—Evidence.— See the opinion for a state of proof *held*insufficient to support a conviction for resisting an officer in the execution of a legal warrant of arrest, even had the information been sufficient.

Appeal from the County Court of Austin. Tried below before the Hon. S. R. Blake, County Judge.

The conviction in this case was for resisting an officer in the execution of a legal warrant of arrest. The punishment assessed against the appellant was a fine of §75. The opinion discloses all material facts.

*Hume & Shepard,*for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

Article 222 of the Penal Code, under which the conviction in this case was had, provides: “ If any party against whom a legal warrant of arrest is directed in any criminal case resist its execution when attempted by any person legally authorized to execute the same, he shall be fined,” etc. It is not alleged in the information that the legal warrant, the resistance of the execution of which is charged, was a warrant *of arrest.*It might have been a legal warrant as alleged in the information, and yet not have been a legal warrant *of arrest,*and if it was not a legal warrant *of arrest*there was no offense against the law under this article. Hor does the information allege that said warrant was directed to said officer in any criminal case. It might be inferred from the information that it was a warrant of arrest against the defendant in a criminal case in which he was charged with an affray; but we are not at liberty to resort to inferences to supply essential allegations in an indictment or information. We are of the opinion that the information is fatally defective, for the reasons above stated.

We are further of the opinion that the evidence does not show such conduct on the part of defendant as constituted resistance to the officer. His name was misspelled in the warrant, and he ob*614jected to being arrested under said warrant because of that irregularity, but, upon being informed that he could not for this reason question the authority of the officer to make the arrest, he at once surrendered himself and went with the officer, obtained sureties and executed a bail bond.

Because of the defects in the information the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*

[Opinion delivered March 11, 1885.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.4

Eastern Division

Gale Clapper

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02635

Honorable Manish S. Shah

United Airlines, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, March 23, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion for extension of

time [74] is granted. Dispositive motions are due 4/1/22, responses 5/6/22, and replies

5/27/22. Notices mailed. (psm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 75 Filed: 03/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:692
DATE: September 17, 2008 

TO: All Interested Parties 

FROM: R. Michael McCabe, Shahram Orandi 

SUBJECT: Upcoming Mobile ID Work Group Meeting 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

th th During the previous Mobile ID workshop held June 4–5 2008, the May 5 draft of the 

Mobile ID Device Best Practice Recommendation (BPR) was discussed and numerous 

updates, corrections, and modifications were proposed and approved for inclusion in an 

updated document. The September 16, 2008 draft of this Mobile ID Device Best Practice 

Recommendation is now available for review and comment. The document and its required 

comment form can be downloaded from http://fingerprint.nist.gov/mobileid. After reviewing 

the document record all of your comments and questions on the form provided and send to 

mobileid@nist.gov 

th The September 16 draft and all comments and questions received will be discussed and 

resolutions formulated during the next Mobile ID workshop to be held: 

When: th Tuesday-Wednesday, October 28-29 , 2008 

Time: 9:00 am-5 pm 

Where: IDTP Conference Center 

 12 South Summit Ave. 

 Gaithersburg, MD 20877 

 (301) 990-9061 

Any additional issues or aspects of Mobile ID that you would like to have discussed during 

the October meeting should be forwarded to mobileid@nist.gov as soon as possible so that 

these topics can be placed on the agenda. 

Directions to IDTP and other visitor information can be found at: 

http://www.idtp.com/mobileid 

Cost: There is no fee for this workshop. Pre-registration is mandatory and closes on 

Tuesday October 21, 2008. After this date, admission to the workshop may not be possible. 

Space is limited, so register early. 

If you are not currently a member of the Mobile ID ad hoc group but would like to join or 

need other information please contact mobileid@nist.gov 

R. Michael McCabe Shahram Orandi 

ID Technology Partners (IDTP) NIST 

mmccabe@idtp.com sorandi@nist.gov 

http://www.idtp.com http://fingerprint.nist.gov/mobileid 

301-865-9371 301-975-3261 

(registration form follows on the next page) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Registration: 

To pre-register for this workshop please complete the following and email to 

mobileid@nist.gov 

First Name: _________________________ Last Name: _______________________ 

Country of Citizenship: ___________________________________________________ 

Title: _________________________________________________________________ 

Company: _____________________________________________________________ 

Address 1: _____________________________________________________________ 

Address 2:______________________________________________________________ 

City: _______________________________ State: __________Zip Code:__________ 

Phone: ________________________________ Ext: ____________________________ 

Email: _________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois

Western Division

Victoria C. McKenzie )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-50249

Plaintiff, )

) Hon. Phillips G. Reinhard

Illinois Department of Children and Family )

Services, et al. )

Defendants. )

)

STATUS REPORT

Now comes attorney for Plaintiff, Victoria C. McKenzie, with a status report per the Honorable 

Lisa A. Jensen’s Minute Order #22 and states:

1. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria C. McKenzie filed her Complaint in this Court along with 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. On July 9, 2020, Judge Reinhard struck Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to meet pleading 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and failure to state a claim on which relief maybe granted.

3. On. September 15, 2020 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion for attorney 

representation, which the Court granted.

4. On September 16, 2020, the Honorable Lisa A. Jensen appointed Matthew S. Jarka to represent 

Plaintiff under Local Rules 83.11(h) and 83.37, and instructed counsel to file an appearance and 

status report informing the Court if counsel planned on filing an Amended Complaint or a 

statement that he cannot amend the Complaint consistent with his obligations under Rule 11 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. On November 23, 2020, the Court granted an extension until February 22, 2021 for Counsel to 

file a status report indicating whether he plans to file an Amended Complaint or a statement that 

he cannot amend the Complaint consistent with his rules under Rule 11.

6. Counsel has continued to communicate with the Plaintiff who has stated that her disability leaves 

her unable to remember the dates, names, and events on which she broadly based her originally 

filed Complaint in this matter.
7. Plaintiff also states her disability leaves her unable to communicate with Counsel by telephone

which has made it difficult to assist Plaintiff to Amend her Complaint.

8. Counsel has been unsuccessful so far in obtaining any Illinois Department of Children and Family 

Services records, the specifics of which are needed to formulate the Amended Complaint.

9. Counsel would like to continue to provide his due diligence to the Plaintiff and this Court and 

requests an extension of sixty days in order to attempt to meet with Plaintiff in person to assist in 

Amending the Complaint.

10. Counsel’s request for extension is not made for purposes of delay, but rather to be able to fulfill 

the responsibilities of the Court’s appointment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff submits this Status Report and request for extension.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Matthew S. Jarka

Asher, Gittler & D’Alba, Ltd.

200 W. Jackson, Suite 720

Chicago, IL. 60606

(312) 601-9241

ARDC #6322603
**Exhibit32**

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer**

**and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AsAdopted Pursuant to**

### **Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC (the “Company”)for the year ended December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), Stephen Russo, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Gregory K. Barber, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1) The Annual Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Stephen Russo       |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Stephen Russo           |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| March 20, 2007          |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
| /s/ Gregory K. Barber   |   |   |
| Gregory K. Barber       |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| March 20, 2007          |   |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of thisstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mrs. Fields FamousBrands, LLC and will be retained by Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

** **

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 384

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 

States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2003

Mr. SHADEGG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under 

the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, 

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enumerated Powers 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY 

7 FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW. 

8 (a) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS ACT.—

9 This Act is enacted pursuant to the power granted Con10 gress under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United 
2

•HR 384 IH 

1 States Constitution and the power granted to each House 

2 of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the 

3 United States Constitution. 

4 (b) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT RE5 QUIRED.—Chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting after section 102 the following new 

7 section: 

8 ‘‘§ 102a. Constitutional authority clause 

9 ‘‘Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and 

10 definite statement of the constitutional authority relied 

11 upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The 

12 failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point 

13 of order in either House of Congress. The availability of 

14 this point of order does not affect any other available re15 lief.’’

16 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

17 at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 1, United States 

18 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

19 section 102 the following new item:

‘‘102a. Constitutional authority clause.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 99.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
            
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cavalry Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hillard C. Gardner, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 ****Date: May 12, 2003
By:
/s/ Hillard C. GardnerHillard C. GardnerTitle Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cavalry Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Cavalry Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit G

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:132
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:133
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:134
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:135
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:136