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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                               7,703
<SECURITIES>                                           178
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                           594
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    19,610
<PP&E>                                               9,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      23,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6,544
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            271
<COMMON>                                               144
<OTHER-SE>                                          16,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        23,550
<SALES>                                             14,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    16,830
<CGS>                                                2,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       11,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       190
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (2,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (2,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (2,092)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.15)



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is correcting a notice previously published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74102) and titled “National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee Call for Committee Membership Nominations.” The notice announced that The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking nominations for the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee.                

                    NIH is amending the due date for nominations from January 5, 2015, as stated toward the end of the notice, to January 12, 2015. For further information about the meeting, please contact Linda Porter, Ph.D.,                     *porterl@ ninds.nih.gov.*

Dated: December 16, 2014.

Walter J. Koroshetz,

Acting Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 2014-30387 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 87-6293.

#### Smolarski *v.*Owens, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Singer Manuf’g Co. *v.*Bent. Same *v.*Larsen.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.*

December 23, 1889.)

Tbade-Mabks — Dteringement.

A manufacturerbas the right to buy old machines of another mate, and to repair, repaint, and sell them again, without removing the trade-mart put on them by their manufacturer.

In Equity. Bills for infringement of trade-mark.

*Offield & Towle*and *L. Maxwell, Jr.,*for complainant.

*J. G. Elliott,*for defendants. . '

■ Blodgett, J.

These two cases have been tried with the preceding case against the June Manufacturing Company, *ante,*208, and present the same issues; and the same testimony has, by stipulation, been considered. The facts are so entirely’similar that. I do not deem it necessary to go into any analysis or-statement of them. In the last-named *215case, the defendant, Larsen, is the same person who was defendant in the case before Judge Drummond, reported in 8 Biss. 151, to which I have referred. And, waiving all question as to whether that case may not have been pleaded as a bar to this case, it is sufficient to say that the proofs in the case show that the defendant has, as it seems to me, scrupulously refrained from making or advertising his machines as the manufacture of complainant, or claimed in any way that they were manufactured by the complainant. He seems to have borne constantly in mind the admonition given by Judge Drummond in the former case, that he must avoid all appearance of attempting to claim or inform the public that his machines are the manufacture of the complainant.

It is true complainant’s proofs seem to show that defendant had sold two machines bearing complainant’s trade-mark; hut the defendant has quite satisfactorily shown that these two machines were manufactured by complainant, and came into defendant’s possession as second-hand machines, in exchange for machines given by defendant; that defendant caused these two old machines to be repaired and repainted, hut left the complainant’s trade-mark plate upon them, and sold them in that condition; that afterwards, defendant hearing that one of complainant’s agents had seen one or both these machines after defendant had sold them, and commented upon the fact that they bore the complainant’s trade-mark, defendant removed the trade-mark plates from the arms of the machines. This removal was an entirely unnecessary and uncalled for act on the part of the defendant. He had the undoubted right to buy those old machines, repair them, and sell them again, with all the *indicia*of their origin which complainant had put upon them; and his removal of the plates was undoubtedly induced by the suggestion from Judge Drummond in his former case. The two bills are therefore dismissed for want of equity.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deshorn Mullings, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 470]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ann M. Donnelly, J), rendered May 10, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established the element of physical injury *(see*Penal Law §§ 10.00 [9]; 160.10 [2] [a]). *408That element only requires proof that a victim’s injuries were more than mere “petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like” *(Matter of Philip A.,*49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]).

The evidence supports the inference that the victim sustained substantial pain as a result of defendant’s violent attack *(see People v Rojas,*61 NY2d 726 [1984]). Among other things, defendant shoved the victim into a fence and repeatedly punched him in the face in an effort to steal his property. This caused bruising, pain and swelling, which made it difficult for the victim to eat and sleep. The jury could have reasonably concluded that these actions caused “more than slight or trivial pain” *(see People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]), even though the victim did not seek medical attention *(see People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 31.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 (Rule 13a-14(a) Certification)

I, Frank W. Backes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 3Si
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:  /s/ Frank W. Backes
Frank W. Backes, CTO/CFO
Date:  November 13, 2004
#### Aaron Cox *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Arrest of Judgment — Demurrer.

In a criminal charge the defect in an indictment should have been taken, advantage of by demurrer.

Arrest of Judgment.

A motion for an arrest of judgment in a criminal case will not be sustained when a public offense is1 charged in the indictment.

APPEAL PROM GREEN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 29, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The defect complained of in the indictment should have been taken advantage of by demurrer. The judgment will not be arrested when a public offense is charged. To steal hogs is larceny, and the guilty party is subjected to punishment. If the offense is not stated with that particularity to make it a good indictment the accused must demur. The facts as stated, if true, make the party guilty of a criminal offense; and it is only in a case where the indictment fails to charge any offense that the motion to arrest the judgment can be sustained. The evidence conduces to show that the hogs strayed from the possession of the alleged owner. The court, in Instruction No. 5, assumes that the hogs were stolen, and the abstract proposition of law, as there presented, requires the accused to explain his possession or his guilt is established. It also directs the attention of the jury more particularly to this cir*480cumstance, the fact of possession, than any other fact in the case. The instruction should not have been given, but the fact of the possession submitted to the jury, like any other fact in the case. Undue importance should not be given to any part of the testimony in a criminal prosecution.

*John W. Lewis, Winfrey & Winfrey, Jamies W. Gorin, for appellant. John Rodman, for appellee.*

Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded with directions to award the appellant a new trial.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40228 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee
v. ED W AR D MCDONA L D D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 7
- CR- 3 3
- ALL
B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orneyapp oi n t ed to repre sen t E dw ard M cD on al d ha s m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). M c D o n a ld h a s file d a r e s p o n s e . T h e r e c o r d is in s u ffic ie n tly deve l ope d t o a l l ow c ons i der at i on atthi s t i m e of M c D onal d’ s c l ai m of i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse l ; s uch c l ai m s gener al l y “ c annotbe r es olved on di r ec tappeal w h en [ th eyh a ve ] n ot be en raised be fore th e d i stri ct co u rt sin ce n o op p ortu n i ty ex i sted to de ve l op the reco rd on th e m erits of th e al l eg a ti on s. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40228

2 Ca n tw ell , 4 70 F. 3d1 08 7, 1 09 1 ( 5t h Ci r. 2 006) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) . Ouri nde pend en t revi e w o f t he r e c o r d, c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f, a nd M c D onal d ’ s r es ponse di sc l os es no nonf r ivol ous issu e fo rappeal . Acc or di ngl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f

or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom fu r th e r r e s p o n s ib ilitie s h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2.
EXH 10.1 AmendmentOneto2015OmnibusIncentiveCompensationPlan






AMENDMENT ONE
to the 
WINGSTOP INC.
2015 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
 
WHEREAS, Wingstop Inc. (the “Corporation”) adopted the Wingstop Inc. 2015 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) effective June 11, 2015; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interests of the Corporation and its shareholders to amend the Plan with respect to the treatment of equity awards upon the occurrence of a Change in Control.


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
1.    Article XV, Change in Control, is hereby amended by substituting the following for Section 15.1, deleting Section 15.2 in its entirety, and renumbering the remaining sections of Article XV.
“15.1    Change in Control.  In the event of a Change in Control, each outstanding Award will be treated as the Committee determines, either by the terms of the Award Agreement or by resolution adopted by the Committee, including, without limitation, that (i) Awards may be assumed, or substantially equivalent Awards may be substituted, by the acquiring or succeeding corporation (or an affiliate thereof) with appropriate adjustments as to the number and kind of shares and exercise price, as applicable; (ii) upon written notice to a Participant, the Participant’s Awards may terminate upon or immediately prior to the consummation of such Change in Control; (iii) outstanding Awards may vest and become exercisable, realizable, or payable, or performance goals and/or restrictions applicable to an Award may be deemed satisfied or lapse, in whole or in part, prior to or upon consummation of such Change in Control, and, to the extent the Committee determines, terminate prior to or upon consummation of such Change in Control; (iv) (A) each outstanding Option and Stock Appreciation Right may be cancelled in exchange for an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock on the date of such Change in Control over the Option Price or Grant Price applicable to such Option or Stock Appreciation Right, (B) each Share of Restricted Stock, each Restricted Stock Unit and each other Award denominated in Shares may be cancelled in exchange for an amount  equal to the Change in Control Price multiplied by the number of Shares covered by such Award, (C) each Award not denominated in Shares may be cancelled in exchange for the full amount of such Award, and (D) any Award the payment or settlement of which was deferred under Section 20.6 or otherwise may be cancelled in exchange for the full amount of such deferred Award; or (v) any combination of the foregoing.”




2.    This Amendment shall be effective as of ____________, 2015.  Except as amended herein, the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment to the Wingstop Inc. 2015 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan effective on the date set forth above.


WINGSTOP INC.   


By:_____________________________
                                [President and Chief Executive Officer]
**EXHIBIT
23.2**
 
 
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Registration No.: 333-105557) of Medis Technologies Ltd. of our reports
dated March 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Medis Technologies Ltd., Medis Technologies Ltd. management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Medis Technologies
Ltd., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004.
 
 
 Kost
      Forer Gabbay & KasiererA
      MEMBER OF ERNST & YOUNG GLOBALTel
      Aviv, IsraelMarch
      14, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Franklin Shuron JONES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-4218.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 19, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2008.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Shuron Jones appeals the sentence of 188 months imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to three drug offenses. We affirm.

After *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), a sentencing court must calculate the appropriate guideline range, consider that range in conjunction with the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006), and impose sentence. *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005). We review a post-Boo/cer sentence to determine whether it is “within the statutorily prescribed range” and reasonable. *Id.*at 547. “[A] sentence within the proper advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006). When conducting a reasonableness inquiry, we review “legal questions, including the interpretation of the guidelines, de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error.” *United States v. Moreland,*437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied, 547*U.S. 1142, 126 S.Ct. 2054, 164 L.Ed.2d 804 (2006).

*575Jones first contends that his sentence is unreasonable because he was erroneously found to be a career offender. Our review of the record satisfies us that he met the criteria for career offender status. *See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 4B1.1(a) (2005). Jones was over eighteen when he committed the instant controlled substance offenses, and he had at least two prior felony convictions for a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. The fact that the majority of Jones’ prior offenses were for misdemeanors is irrelevant.

Jones also argues that the district court did not adequately take his upbringing into consideration. To the contrary, the district court listened carefully to defense counsel’s description of the circumstances in which Jones was raised, and described the situation as “tragic.” In imposing sentence, the court considered a number of factors, including Jones’ background, his extensive criminal history, other § 3553(a) factors, and the presentence report, which the court adopted.

We conclude that the arguments raised on appeal are without merit and that Jones’ sentence, which falls within the properly calculated advisory guideline range, is reasonable. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony A. Lewis, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[825 NYS2d 413]

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, J.), rendered October 12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Lewis*(35 AD3d 1256 [2006]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.