alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT






Board of Directors and Stockholders
SFSB Holding Company

We have  reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of SFSB Holding
Company  and  subsidiary  as of March 31,  2001,  and the  related  consolidated
statements of income for the  three-month  period ended March 31, 2001 and 2000,
and the consolidated statements of cash flow and changes in stockholders' equity
for the three-month  period ended March 31, 2001. These  consolidated  financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information  consists  principally  of applying  analytical  and  procedures  to
financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the  expression  of an opinion  regarding the  financial  statements  taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  balance  sheet as of December 31,  2000,  and the
related consolidated  statements of income,  changes in stockholders' equity and
cash  flows for the year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in our report
dated  February  16,  2001  we  expressed  an   unqualified   opinion  on  those
consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet as of December 31, 2000, is fairly
stated, in all material respects,  in relation to the consolidated balance sheet
from which it has been derived.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
May 10, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                             111,645
<SECURITIES>                       31,397
<RECEIVABLES>                      8,868
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,534
<INVENTORY>                        2,014
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   157,331
<PP&E>                             8,065
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     166,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              26,811
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           289,190
<OTHER-SE>                         (150,853)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       166,188
<SALES>                            63,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   63,806
<CGS>                              61,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      114,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   15,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 18,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (66,230)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (66,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (66,230)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (2.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (2.97)









</TABLE>
LE

v.

ADOMAS JONAVICIUS,

also known as "Adam Jonavicius"

and "Adomas Jonaviciene"

FILED

sEP 08 2020irUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THOMAS G. BRUTON

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CLERK U,S. DHTR|GT COUFlr

EASTERN DIVISION

No. 20 CR 453

Violations: Title 8, United States Code,

Section 1326(a) and Title 6, United

States Code, Section 202(4); Title 18,

United States Code, Section 922(d$)

INDICTMENT 

JUDGE GETTIEMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

COUNT ONE MfiOISTRATE JUDOI fiII[

The SPECIAI NOVEMBER 2019 GRAND JURY charges:

On or about July 10, 2020, at Burr Ridge, in the Northern District of lllinois,

Eastern Division,

ADOMAS JONAVICIUS,

also known as "Adam Jonavicius"

and "Adomas Jonaviciene"

defendant herein, an alien who previously had been deported and removed from the

United States on or about May 7, 2014, was present and found in the United States

without previously having obtained the express consent of the Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, for reapplication by defendant for admission into

the United States;

In violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1326(a) and Title 6, United

States Code, Section 202(4).

Case: 1:20-cr-00453 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:32
COUNT TWO

The SPECIAI NOVEMBER 2019 GRAND JURY further charges:

On or about July 10, 2020, at Burr Ridge, in the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division,

ADOMAS JONAVICIUS,

also known as "Adam Jonavicius"

and "Adomas Jonaviciene,"

defendant herein, knowing that he was an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United

States, did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate commerce, a firearm,

namely, a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum caliber revolver, bearing serial

number K2645I7, which firearm had traveled in interstate commerce prior to the

defendant's possession of the fi.rearm;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(d@).

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

Signed by Matthew F. Madden on behalf of the

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Case: 1:20-cr-00453 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Pamela Ratliff

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03400

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

Joe's Barbeque, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 16, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: The Court has

reviewed the parties' joint status report [57], in which they report that they have agreed in

principle to an individual settlement of the case on behalf of named plaintiff Pamela

Ratliff. The parties state that they are finalizing details related to a payment plan,

settlement agreement, and motion for approval of FLSA settlement. The parties request to

submit their motion for approval of FLSA settlement to the District Court by 09/13/2021.

The parties shall have until 09/13/2021 to file their motion for approval of FLSA

settlement. The parties are to contact Chambers via email (at

Chambers_McShain@ilnd.uscourts.gov) at any time should they require this Court9;s

assistance with any aspect of finalizing the settlement. Mailed notice(lxs, )

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.
Be
fo
© |
=
a | it]
| ——
— €3
[ | — I! 0.07
a =
| 0.07
| I
TO OOOO
—14.25 0.D.
RADIATION
19.00
4
{ t
{
*/ 5 _ LHe FILL PORT
,
i
~Y -
MAGNET —
37.0
(2) 50 OHM WOUND
HEATERS IN PARALLEL
AND CERNOX SENSOR
1.5 DIA. SAMPLE MOUNT
powers ros ose
5/16-18 THREADED STUD X 0.38 LG a
NEUTRON ZONE

3.0 OD X .125 ALUM

2.5

SAMPLE POSITIONER ASSY
W/ (1) 10 PIN FEEDTHROUGH,
(1) THERMOCOUPLE PORT

& (2) BLANK PORTS

S
&

SoS aoe

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7106** 

TIMOTHY A. JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. YOLANDA SMITH MOORE, Counselor, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 0 059 5

- JRS )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy A. Jones , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy A. Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint i n the district court. He appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action without prejudice for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order informing Jones that he needed to particularize his complaint. This court may exercise jurisdictio n only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court, that Jones failed to particularize his claims, may be remedied by the filing of a complaint that satisfies the requirements of the district court, we conclude that the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable in terlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
No. 87-1466.

#### Ainsworth et ux. *v.*Shell Offshore Inc.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of DDi Capital Corp.  (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joseph P. Gisch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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: November 13, 2002

By:

/s/ JOSEPH P. GISCH

 
 
 
 
 
 
**Joseph P. Gisch Chief Executive Officer**

 
  |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

# **SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

# ** **

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of 1-800CONTACTS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Jonathan C. Coon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 
|   | /s/ Jonathan C. Coon       |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief Executive Officer    |   |
|   | Date: August 16, 2005 |   |
|        |                            |        |  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3845 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3845

 To amend the Act of August 13, 1946, to raise the maximum amount that 
 may be allotted by the Secretary of the Army for the construction of 
  small shore and beach restoration and protection projects, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2004

  Mr. Calvert (for himself, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Issa, and Mr. McIntyre) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act of August 13, 1946, to raise the maximum amount that 
 may be allotted by the Secretary of the Army for the construction of 
  small shore and beach restoration and protection projects, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS.

    Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$50,000,000''; and
            (2) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$10,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### ALPHONSE HOTEL CORP., doing business as Hotel Carter, Truong Dinh Tran and Elaine Nguyen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK HOTEL & MOTEL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1757.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2005.

*804David M. Levy, Levy & Boonshoft, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellants.

Barry N. Saltzman (Daniel Costello), Pryor Cashman Sherman *&*Flynn LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

PRESENT: KEARSE, CABRANES and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs appeal the judgment of the District Court dismissing their action, brought under Sections 8 and 303 of the Labor Relations Management Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b) and 187, in which they (1) alleged unfair labor practices, (2) alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (3) sought rescission of a labor agreement. *See Alphonse Hotel Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council,*2004 WL 414836, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2690 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.5, 2004) (“Memorandum Decision”).

The District Court found that the expansive language of the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement (“the CBA”) — to which the hotel had undisputedly consented at some periods of time relevant to the case — compelled the arbitration of all claims at issue in this matter. The District Court accordingly dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of subsequent arbitration proceedings.

Plaintiffs contend on appeal that, *inter alia,*(1) the conduct alleged and claims brought in their complaint are not covered by the arbitration clause of the CBA; (2) issues relevant to the adjudication of their claims — namely, whether they are bound by the CBA — are not covered by the arbitration clause of the CBA; and (3) the District Court erred in its interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s precedential case law.

We review *de novo*the District Court’s judgment. *See, e.g., Jones v. New York State Div. of Military & Naval Affairs,*166 F.3d 45, 49 (2d Cir.1999) (judgment on the pleadings); *Interstate Brands Corp. v. Bakery Drivers & Bakery Goods Vending Machines, Local Union No. 550,*167 F.3d 764, 766 (2d Cir.1999) (arbitrability of claims).

We agree with the District Court that the arbitration clause of the CBA embraces the conduct alleged, and the rescission sought, in plaintiffs’ complaint. *Alphonse Hotel,*2004 WL 414836 at *1 (quoting the arbitration clause of the CBA, including its applicability to all “grievances arising between the parties hereto involving ... any acts conduct [sic] or relations between the parties, directly or indirectly”) (brackets in original); *see Interstate Brands,*167 F.3d at 768 (interpreting a nearly identically-worded arbitration clause to be “unusually broad” and to cover a wide assortment of conduct and claims); *see also Alphonse Hotel,*2004 WL 414836 at *4-*5.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments, and found each of them to be without merit, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Chin in his Memorandum Decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT D. CUMMINGS

, Appellant,

v.

NICOLE CUMMINGS
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 456

[ October 31, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Janis B. Keyser , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502016DR009124XXXXMB

.

Robert D. Cummings, North Port, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d

1150 , 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“ When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the

evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude

that the trial court’ s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.” ).

W ARNER
, M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-91,059-01

EX P ARTE TORRANCE A. HAYNES, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1568666-A IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of exhibi t firea rm on campus or school bus and sentenc ed to three y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not file a dire ct appea l. A pplicant filed this application for a wr it of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that his conviction and sentenc e are void beca use t he convi cting court had no jurisdiction over the offe nse for which he was char g ed. Applicant alleg es he was convicted of a third degre e felony when a newly eff ective Senate Bill made his char g ed conduct a 1

85t h Le gisla tur e, 2 017 Regular Ses si on, Ho use Bil l 2 880. 12

misdemeanor offe nse. Ba sed on the rec ord, the trial court has deter mined that the convicting court lacke d jurisdiction in this matter , pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.07, Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 25.1033, 26.045, and Tex. Const. art. V, sec. 16, which vests exclusive jurisdiction for misdemeanors w ith county courts at law
. R elief is g rante d. The judgme nt in cause number 1568666 in the 351st District Court of Har ris County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to answe r t he charg es as set out in the i ndictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench
war rant within ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Dep a r tm e nt o f Crim in a l Ju s tic e–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Deliver ed: April 22, 2020 Do not publish
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-cv-03860

v. )

) Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

)

MIDWEST MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. )

MELROSE PARK IMMEDIATE )

CARE LTD., GOWHAR KHAN, and )

TABISH KHAN )

)

Defendants. )

JOINT STATUS REPORT FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE WEISMAN

NOW COME Plaintiff PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION (“Pawnee”) and 

Defendants MIDWEST MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (“Midwest Medical”), MELROSE PARK 

IMMEDIATE CARE LTD. (“Melrose Park”), GOWHAR KHAN (“G. Khan”), and TABISH 

KHAN (“T. Khan”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, and for their 

Joint Status Report for Magistrate Judge Weisman, state as follows:

1. On July 1, 2020, Pawnee filed its Verified Complaint for money damages against 

Midwest Medical, Melrose Park, G. Khan, and T. Khan, and for detinue and 

replevin of certain equipment against Midwest Medical. See Verified Complaint, 

Doc. 1. Pawnee’s breach of contract claim against the Defendants sought damages 

of $165,192.07, plus late fees, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs. 

2. On November 12, 2020, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Weisman conducted a

settlement conference. However, the parties were unable to reach a resolution at 

the settlement conference. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03860 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/30/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:57
2

3. After the settlement conference, the parties continued to discuss settlement. 

4. While the parties have not yet reached a resolution, they are currently $35,000.00 

apart on their respective settlement offers. 

5. A status hearing before Magistrate Judge Weisman has been set for December 3, 

2020 at 1pm. 

6. The parties believe that a further settlement conference would be beneficial. The 

parties are available in the afternoons on December 14, 15, 16 and 17. If Magistrate 

Judge Weisman is unavailable on those dates, the parties can choose a mutually 

convenient date at the status hearing on December 3. 

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION,

By: /s/ Debra Devassy Babu 

Debra Devassy Babu

ASKOUNIS & DARCY, PC

444 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3270

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 784-2400 (t)

(312) 784-2410 (f)

ddevassy@askounisdarcy.com

MIDWEST MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 

MELROSE PARK IMMEDIATE CARE 

LTD., GOWHAR KHAN and TABISH 

KHAN

By: /s/ Steven H. Jesser

Steven H. Jesser

2700 Patriot Boulevard, Suite 250

Glenview, IL 60026

(847) 424-0200

shj@sjesser.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03860 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/30/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:58