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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1996 FORM 10-K FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            112,828
<EQUITIES>                                      10,817
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 149,238
<CASH>                                           5,959
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              14,292 
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           9,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,666
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 43,227
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             37,201
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 56,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,157
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,666
<PREMIUMS>                                      86,170
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              8,223
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,244
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  26,946
<BENEFITS>                                      62,866
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            45,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,962
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  32,933
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             64,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               (1,134)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              38,234
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                22,216
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 35,349
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         (1,134)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Angel Diaz, Appellant, v Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Decided June 26, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 348 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 348

To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 
  funds received as universal service contributions and the universal 
 service support programs established pursuant to that section are not 
subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly 
                    known as the Antideficiency Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 29, 2009

 Mr. Rockefeller (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 
  funds received as universal service contributions and the universal 
 service support programs established pursuant to that section are not 
subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly 
                    known as the Antideficiency Act.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    Congress finds that in order to ensure the efficient and effective 
implementation of the Universal Service Fund on a long-term basis, the 
Universal Service Fund needs to be exempt from the Antideficiency Act.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

    Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) Application of Antideficiency Act.--Section 1341 and 
subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code, do not 
apply--
            ``(1) to any amount collected or received as Federal 
        universal service contributions required by this section, 
        including any interest earned on such contributions; nor
            ``(2) to the expenditure or obligation of amounts 
        attributable to such contributions for universal service 
        support programs established pursuant to this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit      10**
**-kk**

**INCENTIVE      STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT**

**ANALYSTS      INTERNATIONAL CORP.**

**2004      EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

**Grant      of Option**

**Duration      and Exercisability**

**General**

----

**Termination      of Employment (other than Disability or Death)**
**three-month      anniversary date**

**Disability**
**twelve-month      anniversary date**

**Death**
**twelve-month      anniversary date **

**Manner      of Exercise**

**General**

----

**Form      of Payment**

**Stock      Transfer Records**

**Miscellaneous**

**Employment;      Rights as Shareholder**

**Securities      Law Compliance**

**Mergers,      Recapitalizations, Stock Splits, Etc.**

**Shares      Reserved**

**Withholding      Taxes on Disqualifying Disposition**

**Nontransferability**

----

**2004      Equity Incentive Plan**

**Lockup      Period Limitation**

**Blue      Sky Limitation**

**Accounting      Compliance**

**Stock      Legend**

**Scope      of Agreement**

**Arbitration**

----

|   | **ANALYSTS                  INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION** |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                    |
|   |                                                    |
| By     |  __________________________________                |
| Its    |  __________________________________                |
|   |                                                    |
|   |  __________________________________                |
|   |  Participant                                       |
#### Fitsum Tsegay HAGOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70342.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 13, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 29, 2006.

Yemi Getachew, The Law Offices of Yemi Getachew, San Jose, CA, Olumide K. Obayemi, Esq., San Leandro, CA, for Petitioner.

*679Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan F. Potter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil DivyOffiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, FARRIS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM *

Fitsum Tsegay Hagos (Hagos), a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

At oral argument, the government conceded a finding of past persecution by the Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ, therefore, abused his discretion when he failed to address the effect of the corresponding presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Circu v. Gonzales,*450 F.3d 990, 993 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (concluding that once there is a finding of past persecution, the petitioner is “entitled ... to the legal presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution ... [which] [t]he government may rebut ... by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions ... have changed[.]”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, the IJ abused his discretion in failing to separately analyze the CAT claim. *See Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that “the inability to state a cognizable asylum claim does not necessarily preclude relief under the [CAT]”).

PETITION GRANTED. REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 10.1
 Amendment  To  Loan and Security Agreement
 AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 Recitals
 A.
 B.
 C.
 D.
 Agreement
 Now, Therefore,
 1. Definitions.
 2. Amendments to Loan Agreement.
 2.1 Amendment to Liquidity Ratio.
   1




---



##### 



2.2 Conforming Changes to Compliance Certificate.
 3. Limitation of Amendments.
 3.1
 3.2
 2




---



##### 



4. Representations and Warranties.
 4.1
 4.2
 4.3
 4.4
 4.5
 4.6
 4.7
 5. Counterparts.
 3




---



##### 



6. Expenses.
 7. Effectiveness
  4




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof,
 BANK
    
    BORROWERSilicon Valley Bank
    
    ATS Medical, Inc.By:
/s/ Nick Honigman
    
    By:
/s/ Michael KramerName: Nick Honigman 
Title: Relationship Manager
    
    Name: Michael Kramer
Title: Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENT
AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY
 Section 1
 Section 2.
 Section 3.
  3F THERAPEUTICS, INC.
    
    ATS ACQUISITION CORP.By:
/s/ Michael Dale
    
    By: /s/ Michael DaleName: Michael Dale 
Title: President
    
    Name: Michael Dale
Title: President
#### In the Matter of Durst Partners L.L.C., Petitioner, v New York City Environmental Control Board, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 281]

Proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered February 8, 2006), challenging respondent’s determination, dated July 28, 2005, which upheld an $800 fine against the owner of 829 Third Avenue, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The owner of 829 Third Avenue was cited by the Department of Buildings for installing a commercial advertising sign on his premises without a permit, in violation of Building Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 27-147. Petitioner, the owner of the building adjacent to 829 Third Avenue, lacks standing to bring this proceeding, inasmuch as it suffered no injury by reason of respondent’s action *(see Society of Plastics Indus, v County of Suffolk,*77 NY2d 761 [1991]; *Matter of Lee v New York City Dept, of Hous. Presero. & Dev.,*212 AD2d 453 [1995], *lv dismissed and denied*85 NY2d 1029 [1995]). The fine was levied on the owner of 829 Third Avenue personally, and not against the property. Even were we to consider the merits and accept petitioner’s unsupported claim that it is a co-owner of a shared “party wall” on which the sign was placed, the money judgment was solely enforceable against the owner of 829 Third Avenue, not petitioner. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





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 AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about May 3, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Peter S. Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





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




Date:   May 3, 2010
/s/ Peter S. KrausPeter S. KrausChief Executive OfficerAllianceBernstein Holding L.P.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00 211 -CV Do nal d Ra y M c Cr ay , A ppe lla nt

v. Lee G lass , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0008 41 , HO NORAB LE STEPH EN YELENO SKY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N On Au gus t 15 , 2 00 8, we no tif ie d a pp e lla nt D on a ld R ay

McCray that th e a pp e llate rec ord i n th is c a s e d id

n o t a p p e ar to c o n ta in

a f in a l o r o th e r w is e a p p e a la b le o r d e r . T h is Co urt’s jurisdiction is l imited to the review of final judg ments and ce rtain interlocutor y order s signe d by

the trial cour t. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C od e Ann. §§ 51 .0 12 , . 01 4 ( Wes t 20 08 ); se eals o Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 3 9 S. W.3 d 191 , 1 95 (T e x. 20 01 ). Mc Cr ay ’s writt e n r e sp on se to t his notice fa i l s t o demonstrate that a final or othe rwise a ppeala ble orde r has be en signed by the trial court. Ac cording ly , the appe al is dismis sed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 3, 2008
Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Percentage

Portland 51 $2,926,984 51 $2,902,799 0 $24,185 0.8%

Sacramento 68 $7,298,080 66 $6,992,690 2 $305,390 4.4%

Phoenix 48 $2,707,604 48 $2,738,803 0 ($31,199) (1.1%)

St. Paul 130 $4,675,334 128 $4,745,087 2 ($69,753) (1.5%)

Tulsa 67 $2,071,136 68 $2,033,815 (1) $37,321 1.8%

OK City 65 $2,007,339 60 $1,866,562 5 $140,777 7.5%

Washington DC 30 $6,772,834 28 $6,751,839 2 $20,995 0.3%

Totals 459 $28,459,310 449 $28,031,595 10 $427,715 1.5%

Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Sacramento California, and Northern Nevada

Phoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

St. Paul Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming

Tulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.

OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.

Washington DC Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through July 8, 2015.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2014 and 2013

Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2013 Increase (decrease)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Thomas, Also Known as Neil Adams, Appellant.

Submitted August 27, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT TO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of March 5, 2013 by and between LabStyle Innovation
Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and SLD Capital Corp. (“Consultant”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Consultant are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement, dated October 5, 2012 (the “Consulting Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Consultant desire to amend the Consulting Agreement to provide for additional consideration to be provided to Consultant
thereunder.


 


NOW THEREFORE,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Consulting Agreement, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Consultant hereby amend the Consulting Agreement as follows:


 


1.           Defined
Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Consulting Agreement.


 


2.           Consideration.


 


(a)          Section
2(a) of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the issuance schedule for shares of Common Stock under Section
2(a) of the Consulting Agreement shall be accelerated such that, beginning for the month of service commencing February 1, 2013,
Consultant shall receive four (4) monthly issuances of 41,667 shares of Common Stock per month in arrears, with the final monthly
issuance to occur as of June 5, 2013 for the monthly period ending May 30, 2013. For the avoidance of doubt, Consultant shall continue
to provide Services through the conclusion of the Term but shall not be entiled to receive more shares of Common Stock than was
originally provided for under under Section 2(a) of the Consulting Agreement (total of 500,000 shares) and shall not be entitled
to receive shares of Common Stock after June 5, 2013 under Section 2(a) of the Consulting Agreement as amended hereby.


 


(b)          As
additional consideration for the Services to be provided under the Consulting Agreement through the conclusion of the Term, the
Company shall issue to Consultant, as of the date of this Amendment, two warrants to purchase shares of Common Stock in the forms
attached to this Amendment as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.


 


3.           No
Further Amendment. This Amendment constitutes the entire amendment to the Consulting Agreement agreed to by the parties, and
except as amended hereby, the Consulting Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Amendment on the date first above written.


 


	LABSTYLE INNOVATIONS CORP.	 	SLD CAPITAL CORP.
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Oren Fuerst	 	By: 	/s/ Steven B. Rosner
	 	Name: Oren Fuerst	 	 	Name: Steven B. Rosner
	 	Title: CEO	 	 	Title:


 




    	1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7875

STANLEY A. BLAKEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER MCCUEN, Kitchen Officer; MAJOR LYCETT;

LIEUTENANT MOORE, Head of discipline

committee,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-01-747-2)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley A. Blakey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley A. Blakey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint without

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies

under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 2001). Because Blakey did

not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the

court’s dismissal of the action, without prejudice, was not an

abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court’s

order. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1996 (Unaudited) and the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended
September 30, 1996 (Unaudited) 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>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         219,508
<SECURITIES>                                     4,998
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,169
<INVENTORY>                                     34,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               386,326
<PP&E>                                       1,430,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,989,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,066
<BONDS>                                      2,470,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                           228
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,651,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,989,318
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               236,977
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  177,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               291,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (614,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (216,944)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (397,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (397,629)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.80)
        


</TABLE>