alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELBERT SMITH, JR., and )

THERESA SMITH )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Case No.: 05-331-BH-B

)

SCALES EXPRESS, INC., et al )

)

Defendant. )

SCALES EXPRESS, INC. and )

LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY )

)

Plaintiffs )

)

v. ) Civil Case No.: 05-719-BH-B

)

ELBERT SMITH, JR., et al )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court regarding the above styled cases. In case number 05-719,

Scales Express, Inc. (hereinafter, “Scales”) has, along with its insurer, Lincoln General Insurance

Company (hereinafter, “Lincoln General”) filed a Complaint in Interpleader. Pursuant to their

Complaint in Interpleader, Scales and Lincoln General have filed a Motion (Doc. 34) to Stay

proceedings in case number 05-331 in which they are defendants. In response to Scales and

Lincoln’s Motion to Stay, Elbert and Theresa Smith (hereinafter, “the Smiths”), plaintiffs in action

05-331, have raised issues the Court feels need to be resolved. 

Based on the Smiths’ pleadings (Doc. 42), it does not seem that Scales, as the alleged

Case 1:05-cv-00331-BH-B Document 44 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 2
tortfeasor in the automobile accident underlying both cases, is entitled to be joined as a Plaintiff in

the Complaint for Interpleader. Therefore, Scales and Lincoln are hereby ORDERED to SHOW

CAUSE on or before January 26, 2006 as to why the Court should not either dismiss their

Complaint for Interpleader (case number 05-719) or require that it be amended so that only Lincoln

is a named Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Smiths contend that because Scales should not be included

as a plaintiff in the interpleader action, Scales and Lincoln’s Motion to Stay proceedings in case

number 05-331 should be denied. Scales and Lincoln are hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE

on or before January 26, 2006 as to why their Motion (Doc. 34) to Stay should not be denied. 

So ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2006.

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00331-BH-B Document 44 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAN J. QUALE, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0519-CG-M

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. It is ORDERED that Defendant Unifund CCR Partners’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is

DENIED as to Count One of the Complaint and GRANTED as to Counts Two and Three of the

Complaint. It is further ORDERED that Counts Two and Three of the Complaint be and are

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Unifund CCR Partners.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00519-CG-M Document 34 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 10-K
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
December 31, 1996 Form 10-K and Annual Report, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000067182
<NAME> JOYCE NICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,895
<PP&E>                                          55,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,248
<BONDS>                                          4,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        686
<COMMON>                                           891
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,408
<SALES>                                         80,365<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,503<F1>
<CGS>                                           47,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.22
<FN>
<F1>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $9,236 MILLION OF EXCISE AND
STATE GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID C. CLARKE, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0685-M 

: 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of : 

Social Security, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be

entered in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue and against

Plaintiff David C. Clarke.

DONE this 21st day of May, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00685-M Document 26 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 1
exv10w21



 






Exhibit 10.21




EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION – BASE SALARIES



Effective October 3, 2005, the Compensation Committee of Jack in the Box Inc. approved new annual
base salaries for Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Linda A. Lang of $700,000, President and
Chief Operating Officer Paul L. Schultz of $485,000 and Executive Vice President Jerry P. Rebel of
$365,000. Effective November 14, 2005, the Compensation Committee approved new annual base
salaries for Executive Vice President Lawrence E. Schauf of $354,000, for Senior Vice
President David M. Theno of $332,000 and for Gary Beisler, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Qdoba Restaurant Corporation, of $300,000.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 21.1


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

1.  DIGNITY PRESTIGE SDN BHD, A MALAYSIA CORPORATION
2.  DIRECTAMERICA CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION (D/B/A, E4L TELEVISION)
3.  NATIONAL MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
4.  POSITIVE RESPONSE TELEVISION, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION
5.  QUANTUM PRESTIGE PTY LIMITED, A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
6.  QUANTUM ASIA, A HONG KONG JOINT VENTURE (50% OWNED SUBSIDIARY)
7.  QUANTUM INTERNATIONAL JAPAN COMPANY LTD., A JAPANESE CORPORATION
8.  QUANTUM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, A UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION
9.  QUANTUM MARKETING INTERNATIONAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
10. QUANTUM MARKETING MEXICO S.A. DE C.V., A MEXICO CORPORATION
11. QUANTUM NORTH AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION (D/B/A, E4L
    NORTH AMERICA)
12. QUANTUM POLSKA SP. ZO.O., A POLAND  CORPORATION
13. QUANTUM PRODUCTIONS AG, A SWITZERLAND CORPORATION
14. SUZANNE PAUL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED, AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
15. SUZANNE PAUL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
16. TELEMALL SHOPPING PTY LTD., AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
17. NMC MEDIA SUBSIDIARIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION


                                      -47-
<PAGE>   1









                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Genesis has the following consolidated subsidiaries, each of which is
wholly-owned. The German subsidiaries are in liquidation.

              Name                               Jurisdiction
              ----                               ------------

GenCoat Inc.                                     Delaware

GenInternational Inc.                            Delaware

GenSystems Inc.                                  Delaware

GenSystems Services Inc.                         Delaware

GFG Corporation                                  Wisconsin

H-V Asset Management Corp.                       Delaware

H-V Equipment Company                            Pennsylvania

H-V Mill Roll Services Inc.                      Pennsylvania

H-V Roll Center Inc.                             Pennsylvania

H-V Technical Servcies Inc.                      Delaware

Herr-Voss Corporation                            Pennsylvania

Herr-Voss Industries Inc.                        Pennsylvania

Monarch Ohio, Inc.                               Ohio

Precision Industrial Corporation                 Delaware

Salem International Services, Inc.               Pennsylvania

WLT Corporation                                  Pennsylvania

Monarch Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH                   Germany

Stamco Depiereux GmbH                            Germany

Monarch Busch GmbH                               Germany

Stamco (U.K.), Ltd.                              United Kingdom



                                       55
<PAGE>   2


Monarch Machine Tool International, Inc. (FSC)   Barbados, West Indies

GFG International Corporation (FSC)              Virgin Islands

GFG Peabody Ltd.                                 United Kingdom

H-V Foreign Sales Corporation                    Virgin Islands

Herr-Voss Limited                                United Kingdom

Mazuinas Operatrizes Monarch LTDA                Brazil

Salem Engineering Company Limited                United Kingdom

Salem Engineering Limited                        United Kingdom




                                       56
Judgment 1

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (10173)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Supervised Release)

CORY DANIEL NICHOLS

CASE NUMBER: 1:08-CR-00392-001

USM NUMBER: 10570-003

THE DEFENDANT: LaWanda J. O’Bannon, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision condition statutory as set forth in the Petition dated 3/9/2016.

was found in violation of supervision condition: ___

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

Statutory New Offense 02/18/2016

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed 

pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, 

and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

March 28, 2016

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

April 8, 2016

Date

X

Case 1:08-cr-00392-CG-M Document 72 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: CORY DANIEL NICHOLS

Case Number: 1:08-CR-00392-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of EIGHT (8) MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of 

Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 1:08-cr-00392-CG-M Document 72 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20529 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ABDIEL PLANCARTE

- FRUTIS, also known as Adbiel Plancarte, also known as Adbiel Frutis Plancarte , Defendant

- Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 32

- 1
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abdiel Plancarte

- Frutis appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States following removal subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Plancarte

- Frutis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20529 Document: 00513572015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2016No. 15

- 20529 § 3553(a). He maintains that his within

- guidelines range sentence should not be considered presumptively reasonable because the Guideline under which he was sentenced, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, but he acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed. He asserts that his guidelines range was greater than necessary be cause § 2L1.2 double counted his prior conviction as that conviction was responsible for a 16

- level increase and all five of his criminal history points

. He contends that the sentence failed to account for his personal history and characteristics because it did not reflect his strong ties to the United States and the motive for his offense

. A discretionary sentence imposed within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 20 08). As Plancarte

- Frutis acknowledges, his assertion that we should not apply a presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 is not empirically based is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court we ighed the sentencing factors, rejected Plancarte

Frutis ’s request for a downward variance, and imposed a within

- guidelines range sentence primarily based on Plancarte

- Frutis ’s criminal offenses. The double counting argument that Plancarte

- Frutis raises ha s been previously rejected. See Duarte , 569 F.3d at 529

- 31. As Plancarte

- Frutis was sentenced within the guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, and Plancarte

- Frutis has not shown sufficient reason for us to disturb that presumption. See United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 15-20529 Document: 00513572015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2016
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42073

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

RUBEN CARREON MENDOZA ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 868

Filed: December 16, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr. , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one

- half years, for domestic battery with traumatic injury, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Ruben Carreon Mendoza entered an Alford 1 plea to domestic battery with traumatic

injury . I.C. § 18

- 918(2) . In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed not to pursue an

allegation that Mendoza was a persis tent violator. The district court sentenced Mendoza to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one

- half years

. Mendoza filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mendoza appeals.

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mendoza ’s jud gment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

Date: August 13, 2004
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 11

                        STATEMENT RE: PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Year Ended December 31
                                            1996          1995          1994
                                        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>         
Net income (loss)                       $ 1,278,000   $   259,000   ($1,089,000)
Less:  Preferred stock dividend              (9,000)       (9,000)       (9,000)
                                        -----------   -----------   -----------

                                        $ 1,269,000   $   250,000   ($1,098,000)
                                        ===========   ===========   ===========


PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

Average shares outstanding                2,584,155     2,100,900     2,083,092
Net effect of dilutive stock options-
  based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price                 32,340        13,957            --
                                        -----------   -----------   -----------

Total                                     2,616,495     2,114,857     2,083,092
                                        ===========   ===========   ===========


Net income (loss)                             $0.49         $0.12        ($0.53)
                                              =====         =====         =====


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE (a)

Average shares outstanding                2,584,155     2,100,900     2,083,092
Net effect of dilutive stock options-
  based on the treasury stock method
  using the year-end market price, if
  higher than average market price           37,834        27,452            --
Increase in common stock based on
  the assumption that the preferred
  shares were converted as of the
  beginning of the year                      70,380        70,380        70,380
                                        -----------   -----------   -----------

Total                                     2,692,369     2,198,732     2,153,472
                                        ===========   ===========   ===========


Net income (loss)                             $0.47         $0.12        ($0.51)
                                              =====         =====         =====
</TABLE>


(a)     This calculation is presented in accordance with Regulation S-K although
        the resultant effect of the assumed conversion of preferred stock shares
        is antidilutive. Therefore, amounts computed under Regulation S-K differ
        from that which is required for financial reporting under Accounting
        Principles Board Opinion No. 15.

                                       17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000070412
<NAME> E4L,INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,574
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (12,059)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,818
<PP&E>                                           8,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,801
<SALES>                                        327,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,850
<CGS>                                          302,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  379,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,034)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,876
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,598)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.70)


</TABLE>