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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                       614
<INVENTORY>                                     18,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,695
<PP&E>                                          63,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                (28,258)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,314
<BONDS>                                         14,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,854
<SALES>                                         24,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,429
<CGS>                                           20,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,137
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,545
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
LONDON PACIFIC GROUP LIMITED
                   Subsidiary Listing as of February 28, 2003


London Pacific Group Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Frederick Morgan & Co. Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  London Pacific Technologies, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

                           LP Advisors, Inc. (California corporation)

                                    London Pacific Advisory Services, Inc.*
                                     (California corporation)

                                    London Pacific Securities, Inc.*
                                     (Delaware corporation)

                                            LPA Insurance Agency, Inc.*
                                             (California corporation)

  London Pacific Advisers Limited (United Kingdom corporation)

  London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey,
                   Channel Islands corporation)

  London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

                           Berkeley Capital Management (California corporation)

                           Berkeley Institutional Investment, Inc.
                            (California corporation)

                           Berkeley International Capital Corporation
                            (California corporation)

                           North American Fiduciary Services, Inc.
                            (California corporation)

                  London Pacific Secretaries Limited
                   (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

____________

Notes:
(1)    Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.
(2)    All subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above, except that several
       subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.

*Does business under the name "London Pacific Advisors."
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3354

_____________________________

JOHN WALTER PIPPIN, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County.

Melissa G. Olin, Judge.

May 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak; 

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Ross S. Haine II, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.1

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$15,000                                                         October 13, 2004

      FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, WITS BASIN PRECIOUS MINERALS INC., a
Minnesota corporation (the "Maker"), hereby promises to pay to the order of Hawk
Precious Minerals Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Canadian
Province of Ontario, or its assigns (the "Payee"), at such place as the Payee
may designate in writing, the principal sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars
($15,000), under the terms set forth herein.

1. INTEREST. The unpaid principal balance hereof from time to time outstanding
shall bear interest from the date hereof at the rate of ten percent (10%) per
annum.

2. PAYMENT. The principal and interest hereof is payable no later than February
13, 2005.

3. OPTIONAL PREPAYMENTS. The Maker may prepay this Promissory Note, in whole or
in part, and in cash, without penalty by Maker upon ten days written notice to
Payee. Prepayments shall be applied first to accrued but unpaid interest and
then to principal.

4. APPLICABLE LAW. THE VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION AND ENFORCEABILITY OF THE
PROMISSORY NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF.

5. WAIVERS. The Maker hereby waives presentment for payment, notice of dishonor,
protest and notice of payment and all other notices of any kind in connection
with the enforcement of this Note.

6. NO SETOFFS. The Maker shall pay principal and interest under the Note without
any deduction for any setoff or counterclaim.

7. COSTS OF COLLECTION. If this Note is not paid when due, the Maker shall pay
Payee's reasonable costs of collection, including reasonable attorney's fees.

                                       WITS BASIN PRECIOUS MINERALS INC.


                                       By /s/ Mark D. Dacko
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Mark D. Dacko, Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Mack, Appellant.

Submitted June 14, 2010;

decided June 24, 2010

Motion to enlarge the record on appeal herein granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6830

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DUAN A. SOMERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:00-cr-00360-TSE-4)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duan A. Somers, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle C. Brice, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Duan A. Somers appeals the district court’s order 

denying reconsideration of its previous order granting Somers’ 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. 

The district court’s order reducing Somers’ sentence was entered 

on March 20, 2008. In August 2008, Somers filed a motion for 

reconsideration of that order, that the district court denied. 

As the district court lacked the authority to grant 

reconsideration of its previous order, United States v. Goodwyn, 

596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 2010 WL 2151021 

(U.S. June 28, 2010), we affirm the district court’s order 

denying reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument as the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid in the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135132 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135132 

 COA: 271154 

Wayne CC: 06-001959-01

JOSEPH HINES, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 22, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                          42,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                       423
<INVENTORY>                                     35,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,245
<PP&E>                                         424,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                 297,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,402
<BONDS>                                        280,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     25,000
<COMMON>                                           411
<OTHER-SE>                                   (129,133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   267,706
<SALES>                                        121,015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,015
<CGS>                                           71,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,417)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,979)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(1)
The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



May 15, 2007/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive Officer/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON 
PAGES 1-3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         217,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,159,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                   283,575
<INVENTORY>                                    841,624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,002,208
<PP&E>                                       9,601,072
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,685,924)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,744,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,328,481
<BONDS>                                      3,879,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          137,777
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,089,638
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,136,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,744,530
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,952,647
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,273,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                29,563
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             172,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (476,945)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (476,945)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (476,945)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John D’Errico, Appellant, v New York City Department of Corrections, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 795.

Appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying appellant’s claim for benefits, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from that part of the order absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question; appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board denying appellant’s request for reconsideration or full Board review, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### State v. Conner

Case below: Gates County Superior Court

No. 219A91-5

AG’s Motion to Vacate Stay of Execution (Gates County Superior Court)

Allowed 12/14/06
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6126

STEPHEN T. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus MR. SMITH, the Captain of the Burke County Jail, Morgantown, North Carolina; VERA DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; SANDY DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; DIANN DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; CATHY DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individuallyand in her official capacity; CANDY DOE, Correctional O fficer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; PHILLIS BANNER, Nurse at the Burke CountyJail, individually and in her official capacity; JOHN DOE 1, Dietician at the Burke CountyJail, individually and in his official capacity; JANE DOE 1, Dietician at the Burke CountyJail, individually and in her official capacity; JOHN DOE 2, Sergeant at the Burke CountyJail, individually and in his official capacity; JANE DOE 2, Sergeant at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at She lby. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-193-4-MU)23 Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the dist rict court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Smith , No. CA-95-193-4-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 1996).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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 4, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00827

- CV

Les GRIFFIN and Molly Griffin,

Appellants

v.

PST INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19541C

Honorable Susan Harris , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant s ’ brief was due on October 5 , 2020

. Neither the brief nor a motion for

extension of time has been filed. We therefore ORDER appellant s to file the ir brief in this court

no later than 1 0 days from the date of this order, along with a written response reasonably explaining : (1) their f

ailure to timely file the brief ; and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant s ’ failure to timely file a brief.

If appellant s fail to file a br ief and the written response by the date ordered, t his appeal

will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.3 (b), (c)

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of February, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FIANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MULTICARE
COMPANIES, INC. FORM 10-K TRANSITIONAL REPORT FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,069
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,254
<PP&E>                                         523,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 823,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,432
<BONDS>                                        423,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           317
<OTHER-SE>                                     262,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   823,133
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,952
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  406,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,087
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,751
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    873
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>