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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049510
<NAME> ACME TELEVISION, LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,048
<PP&E>                                          28,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,619
<BONDS>                                        153,357
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   327,707
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,635
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       936
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,286)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,286)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0


</TABLE>
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. JAMES HOGAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted February 16, 1945

Decided April 19, 1945.

Por the plaintiff in error, *James A. Butler*and *Andrew 0. Wittreich.*

Por the defendant in error, *Waller D. VanRiper, John Grimshuw, Jr.,*and *William W. Wimmer.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bobine, J.

On February 21st, 1933, the defendant, with others, was indicted for robbery. He was convicted but the conviction was set aside by the Supreme Court. *State*v. *Hogan,*13 *N. J. Mis. B.*119; *affirmed,*115 *N. J. L.*531. So matters rest till the defendant moved that the trial of the case be set for a day certain or a *nolle pros*be entered. *R. 8.*2 :190-2. The clay was fixed and the trial proceeded, resulting in a conviction and an affirmance in the Supreme Court. 132 *N. J. L.*148.

We think that there was trial error and that the conviction should be reversed.

During summation of counsel there was some suggestion that the jury could, in this particular case, recommend clemency. The trial judge told the jury that they could not do so and that their sole duty was to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The court directed that the verdict be taken by the clerk. *R. S.*2:190-14.

Thereafter, the clerk telephoned to the trial judge. Apparently acting upon instructions received in this manner, he *60told the jury that they could recommend clemency. The jury shortly thereafter returned a verdict of guilty with such recommendation.

The clerk has no power to charge the jury. *Folkner*v. *Hopkins,*100 *N. J. L.*190; *Sockolowski*v. *Olkowski,*102 *Id.*50. Two inconsistent instructions were given apparently— the second to induce a verdict because the record discloses that the jury had been out for several hours. The inference may be properly drawn that the officials were desirous of going home.

The Supreme Court did not view the specification of causes and assignments of error, which are printed in its opinion, as sufficient to raise this question. We think otherwise. The trial error pointed out was the delegation of the duty to the clerk to instruct the jury and, secondly, depriving the defendants counsel of the right to request a specific charge upon the point, because the court was absent and could not function. We think the judicial error was specifically pointed out. The practice resorted to can find no justification in our jurisdiction. We do not hereby alter any of the rules as to assignments of error and specification of causes for reversal laid down in *State*v. *Herron,*77 *N. J. L.*523; *State*v. *Blaine, 104 Id.*325, and *State*v. *Bassone,*109 *Id.*176, but we differ with the Supreme Court as to the meaning of those and think the trial error was specifiealty pointed out as required by law.

The other matters argued need not now be considered.

The conviction must be reversed.

*For affirmance*— None.

*For reversal*— The Chancellor, Parker, Care, Bodine, Heher, Porter, Colie, Wells, Raeeerty, Thompson, Dill, Freund, JJ. 12.
EXHIBIT 33.3

[LOGO] WILMINGTON                                      Wilmington Trust Company
       TRUST                                           Rodney Square North
                                                       1100 North Market Street
                                                       Wilmington, DE 19890-0001

                             Management Assessment

Management of the Company is responsible for assessing compliance with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(ii) of Regulation AB of the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006 of asset-backed transactions initiated or amended
for purposes of Regulation AB in 2006 involving floorplan receivables, accounts
receivable and asset based lending receivables (the Platform). All other
criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB have been determined by the Company to
be not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform.

The Company's management has assessed the effectiveness of the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set
forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of Item
1122 of Regulation AB.

Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, the Company has complied in all material respects with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(ii) of Regulation AB of the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of the Platform.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to management's assessment of compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006.


                                                /s/ William J. Farrell, II
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  William J. Farrell, II
                                                Title: Executive Vice President,
                                                       Corporate Client Services

                                                Date:  February 23, 2007
Case: 1:20-cr-00458 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:60
Case: 1:20-cr-00458 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:61
Case: 1:20-cr-00458 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/04/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:62
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of First Consulting Group, Inc., a Delaware,corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

 

(i)    theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the periodended July 1, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  August 10, 2005 | /s/ THOMAS  A. WATFORD                                        |   |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Thomas A.  Watford                                            |
|                         | Executive  Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238.  This certification shall not be deemed “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, nor shall it be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Companyunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 530 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 11, 1998.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                             BELL MICROPRODUCTS INC.
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
                           BENEFIT FOR W. DONALD BELL
                              AS OF AUGUST 3, 2005

As of August 3, 2005, the independent directors of the Board of Directors
determined that $450,000 would be the annual benefit under the Bell
Microproducts Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan dated July 1, 2002 for
W. Donald Bell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27344]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Small Business: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition, and 
Reproductive Sciences.
    Date: November 14, 2014.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 6175, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
1154, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9cdc0c8c7c7cc87c1c8dbcdd0e9c7c0c187cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="caaea3aba4a4afe4a2abb8aeb38aa4a3a2e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations, imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: November 13, 2014.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-27344 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Gardenia Lydia KALIGIS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73468.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 8, 2004.

Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, WWS — District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gardenia Lydia Kaligis, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

*547Kaligis did not present sufficient evidence to compel a finding that she suffered past persecution or that she has an objectively reasonable fear of persecution should she return to Indonesia. Kaligis was never physically harmed or targeted on account of her religion, and she has failed to show that the hardships of which she complains are the result of anything more than general conditions of unrest. *See Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998). Moreover, as the IJ noted, Kaligis’ family continues to live in Indonesia without incident. *See Aruta v. INS,*80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir.1996).

Because Kaligis failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Kaligis’ Convention Against Torture claim also fails because she has not shown it is “more likely than not” that she will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Kaligis’ motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was granted, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issue of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Lawrence H Gress, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04405

Honorable Jorge L. Alonso

Commonwealth Edison Co, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, October 1, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Defendant's agreed motion

for extension of time to answer, move or otherwise plead [40] is granted in part.

Defendant is granted an extension to 10/29/20 to answer, move or otherwise plead in

response to complaint. The motion is otherwise denied. Further deadlines to be

determined. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, )

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-04405 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:537
10245.

#### Brown *v.*Nichols, administratrix.

Luke, J.

1. It is essential to the validity of every contract that there be a consideration; and the fact that a promissory note is under seal ■ will not defeat the right of the maker or his administrator to plead want of consideration. A contract nudum pactum is no more .enforceable when under seal than when not under seal, as against a timely defense and proof thereof. *Seawright*v. *Dickson,*16 *Ga. App.*436, 440 et seq. (85 S. E. 625); *Krueger*v. *Simmons,*22 *Ga. App.*210 (95 S. E. 718), and eit.

*(a)*The court did not err in refusing to charge the jury that “a promissory note under seal may be the subject of a valid gift, as between *570the maker and the payee thereof, and needs no other or further consideration.

Decided April 18, 1919.

Complaint; from Bleckley superior court—Judge Graham. November 18, 1918.

Dykes A. Brown, the payee of a promissory note for $5,000, purporting to have been signed by B. E. Nichols, brought suit thereon against the administratrix of the estate of Nichols. The defendant pleaded non est factum, payment, and that the note was nudum pactum; and introduced evidence which it was contended would authorize a finding in favor of any of these defenses. There was testimony as to declarations of the plaintiff tending to show that the decedent intended by this note to make a gift to him. The note was under seal. On the proposition that a promissory note under seal may be the subject of a valid gift as between the maker and the payee, counsel for the plaintiff cited *Lacey*v. *Hutchinson,*5 *Ga. App.*874. On the question whether total want of consideration may be pleaded to a note under seal, he cited: *Weaver v. Cosby,*.109 *Ga.*310 (2); *Sivell*v. *Hogan,*119 *Ga.*167 (1); *Van Dyke*v. *Van Dyke,*123 *Ga.*686; *Slaton*v. *Fowler,*124 *Ga.*956. As to want of consideration, counsel for the defendant cited: *Loudermilk*v. *Loudermilk,*93 *Ga.*444 (2); *Davis*v. *Morgan,*117 *Ga.*507; *Monroe*v. *Marlin,*137 *Ga.*262. As to such a defense to a sealed note he cited: *Lacey*v. *Hutchinson,*supra, p. 865; *Sims*v. *Scheussler,*5 *Ga. App.*850 (4); *Saul*v. *Southern Seating &c. Co.*6 *Ga. App.*843; *Williams-Thompson Co. v. Williams,*10 *Ga. App.*251; *Strickland*v. *Farmers Supply Co.,*14 *Ga. App.*661; *Bruton*v. *Wooten,*15 *Ga.*570; *Neil*v. *Bunn,*58 *Ga.*583; *Simms*v. *Lide,*94 *Ga.*553; *Weaver*v. *Crosby,*109 *Ga.*310 (2); Clark, Contr. 72, par. 33.

*H. F. Lawson,*for plaintiff.

*Hamilton McWhorter, Hall & Grice,*for defendant.

2. The court did not err in overruling the objection to the admissibility of evidence as set out in ground 1 of the motion for new trial.

3. The evidence supported the verdict, which has the approval of the learned trial judge; and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 325 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 325

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 1997

 Mr. Solomon submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following Member be, and he is hereby, elected 
to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services: Mr. Fossella of New 
York.
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Fossella of New 
York.
                                 <all>
```
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: 33rd Annual FISSEA Conference 

Date(s): May 16, 2023 CEU Hours Earned: 8 hours 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: The focus of this year’s conference is on federal government efforts to address Consumer Fraud and 

how awareness and training of federal employees contributes to effective privacy and security practices for consumers and 

citizens. Webinar attendees will hear presentations from: 

• William Brown, Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General

• Kathy Stokes, Fraud Prevention Programs, AARP

• Rosario Mendez, Federal Trade Commission

• Michael P. Moran, Special Agent, United States Secret Service

• Dr. Aunshul Rege, Temple University

Location: Virtual Webinar; https://www.nist.gov/news-events/events/2023/05/33rd-annual-fissea-conference

Name of Meeting Host: Marian Merritt, Deputy Director, Lead for International Engagement, NICE 

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice 

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
Opinion issued May 1 9 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00819
- CV

——————————— MARK GROBA , Appella nt

V. GERMAN AMERICAN FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COM PANY , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2009
- 16387

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mark Groba , has neither established indigence, nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk ’ s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. Se e id. Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of2

prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3( b) , 42.3(b) . We dismiss any pending motions
as moot. PER CURIAM Panel con sists of Justice s Jennings, Masse gale, and Huddle.