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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         210559
<SECURITIES>                                   205317
<RECEIVABLES>                                  455087
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8121
<INVENTORY>                                    362119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1299928
<PP&E>                                        4664099
<DEPRECIATION>                                2245289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4110402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          573477
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       522420
<OTHER-SE>                                    1171453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4110402
<SALES>                                       2721048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2721048
<CGS>                                         2114554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 2114554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               331805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1921
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                307568
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            233997
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   143392
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    3.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    3.42
        


</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Stockholders


Balchem Corporation





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-155655, 333-118292, 333-118291, 333-78355, 333-44489, 333-5912 and 333-5910) on Form S-8 of Balchem Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated February 28, 2011 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Balchem Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


New York, New York


February 28, 2011







58
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. 

# DATES:

April 6-7, 2009. 

# Time:

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20054. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820. 

Dated: January 5, 2009. 

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. E9-1400 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
#### Jasmine Zheng et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 9, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted. Motion for interim relief denied.
Document

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
SMART SAND, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED
2016 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Smart Sand, Inc. Amended and Restated 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of June 7, 2022, the date it was approved by the Company’s stockholders. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the same meanings as in the Plan.
WHEREAS, the Company currently awards incentive compensation to Eligible Recipients under the Plan, which was approved by the Board on April 3, 2020 and by the Company’s stockholders on June 2, 2020.
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan by 3,900,000 shares.
WHEREAS, this Amendment requires the approval of the Company’s stockholders.
WHEREAS, the Board, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, which has been designated as the Committee by the Board under Section 2.12 and Section 3.1 of the Plan, approved this Amendment on April 21, 2022, subject to the approval of the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to increase the number of shares of Common Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan by 3,900,000 shares, from 5,999,513 shares to 9,899,513 shares, and to amend the Plan as set forth in this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 
1.Section 4.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read:
“9,899,513 shares; and”
2.Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read:  
“Restrictions on Incentive Stock Options. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Plan to the contrary and subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.5 of this Plan, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that will be available for issuance pursuant to Incentive Stock Options under this Plan will be 9,889,513 shares.”
3.Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect, and in the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment shall control.
FORM 10-Q--QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(D)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

[X] Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the period ended

 June 30, 2003

or

[  ]  Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from ______ to ___________

 

Commission File Number: 33-18089-A

 

HICKORY LENDERS, LTD.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         188,392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,308,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,496,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,496,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,496,993
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,022
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,022)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.96)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Landy, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 921]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered December 2, 2011 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to five years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. Defendant’s sole claim on appeal, that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive, is foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence *(see People v Marshall,*108 AD3d 884, 884 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 957 [Oct. 30, 2013]; *People v Seuffert,*104 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1009 [2013]).

Stein, J.E, Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,632]


Duct Sox Corporation, a Subsidiary of Rite Hite, Dubuque, IA; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 18, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by workers of Duct Sox Corporation, a subsidiary of Rite 
Hite, Dubuque, Iowa.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13894 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Manuel



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

June 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00785

- CV

Mary Ann CASTRO

, Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 15957 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### O R DER

The Appellant ’ s Motion to Accept Final Closing Arguments and Motion of Reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sa id court on this 24th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE - CHAIR OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE : : : : : No. 659 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW**  , this 24 th day of April , 201 7 , David L. Kwass, Esquire, is hereby designated as Chair, and Johanna L. Gelb, Esquire, is designated as Vice - Chair, of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee , com mencing June 30, 201 7 .
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.  23-17944, 33-22040, 33-24509,
33-28600, 33-58200, 33-59391 and 33-59393) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-02369 and 
333-09225).



                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
December 3, 1997
#### Anita DEVI; Kunaal Venkat, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70020.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 *.

Filed Dec. 13, 2006.

See also 107 FedAppx. 68.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anita Devi and her son Kunaal Venkat, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying as untimely their third motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *708We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *de Martinez v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply equitable tolling to the petitioner’s third motion to reopen because the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they acted with due diligence in pursuing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim against their prior attorney, and the petitioners had been represented by new counsel for over two and a half years before filing the current motion. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling applies where the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering previous counsel’s deception, fraud, or error). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### TALLEY v. AMERICAN BAKERIES CO. (two cases).

Civ. A. Nos. 2268 & 2269.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, N. D.

April 19, 1954.

Jennings, O’Neil & Jarvis, Knoxville, for plaintiff.

Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, Knoxville, for defendant.

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

Motion has been made by defendant that these cases be stricken from the jury docket, because of alleged non-compliance with Rule 81(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. The pertinent portion of Rule 81(c) is as follows:

> “(c) *Removed Actions.*These rules apply to civil actions removed to the United States district courts from the state courts and govern procedure after removal. * * * If at the time of removal all neces*392sary pleadings have been served, a party entitled to trial by jury under Rule 38 shall be accorded it, if his demand therefor is served within 10 days after the petition for removal is filed if he is the petitioner, or if he is not the petitioner within 10 days after service on him of the notice of filing the petition.”

 “These rules” govern procedure *after*removal. They neither add to nor abrogate what has been done in the state court prior to removal. Rule 81(c), construed in the light of its opening sentence, makes provision for jury trial where the same has not been demanded prior to removal. A plaintiff whose case has been removed is not required to withdraw his complaint and file a new one. Nor is he required to re-file his exhibits to the complaint. Nor is he required to revise a complaint, which may be a lengthy one, merely because the Federal Rules provide that the complaint be short and plain. Rule 8. No practical reason appears for the view that a plaintiff who has demanded a jury prior to removal must do the same thing over again, after removal.

 “Upon removal of a cause, the federal court does not, in any way, act as a court of appeals. It takes the case precisely as it finds it, accepting all decrees and orders of the state court as adjudications.” Guernsey v. Cross, C.C., 153 F. 827, 828. “When a case is removed the federal court takes it as though everything done in the state court had in fact been done in the federal court. 28 U.S. C.A. § 81; Cain v. Commercial Publishing Co., 232 U.S. 124, 34 S.Ct. 284, 58 L. Ed. 534.” Savell v. Southern Railway Company, 5 Cir., 93 F.2d 377, 379, 114 A.L.R. 1261. “The transfer of the cause to the United States court gave the latter court control of the case as it was when the state court was deprived of its jurisdiction.” Clark v. Wells, 203 U.S. 164, 171, 27 S.Ct. 43, 45, 51 L.Ed. 138. See, also, 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 321, 322; Angel v. McLellan Stores Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 893; Goade v. Vollrath, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 971.

It is the Court’s opinion that the provision of Rule 81(c) applies only in those removed cases where a jury has not been demanded prior to removal. Nothing in the rule indicates the contrary, and the Court’s view is in accord with the general rule that on removal the federal court takes the case as it finds it and proceeds from there.

Accordingly, an order will be prepared, overruling defendant’s motion.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias CHAPA-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40587.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Elias Chapa-Gutierrez, Falfurrias, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elias Chapa-Gutierrez (Chapa) appeals the 33-month sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for transporting illegal aliens within the United States. Chapa argues that, in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his sentence must be vacated because it was enhanced on the basis of judicial factual findings. Specifically, he challenges the increase in his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(5).

Chapa concedes that he did not raise a constitutional challenge to his sentence before the district court and that review is for plain error. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). The district court did commit *Booker*error because Chapa’s sentence was enhanced based on facts not alleged in the indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. *See Booker,*543 U.S. at 244, 125 S.Ct. 738. However, Chapa fails to meet his burden of showing that the error affected his substantial rights. *See Mares,*402 F.3d at *475521. Chapa has not identified anything in the record indicating that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory guidelines scheme. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed November 9, 2016.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01259

- CV 

### ALLIANCE ROYALTIES, INC. AND ALLIANCE ROYALTIES, LLC , Appellant s V. 

### VENTOS ENTITIES AND DLNGR NR LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 02930

- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Before the Court is the joint motion to dismiss this appeal based on a settlement
agreement between the parties. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1. We GRANT the motion and DISMISS

the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f).

/Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

151259F.P05– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ALLIANCE ROYALTIES, INC. AND ALLIANCE ROYALTIES, LLC, Appellants

No. 05

- 15

- 01259

- CV V.

VENTOS ENTITIES AND DLNGR NR LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 02930

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement of th e parties, it is ORDERED that appellees recover their costs of this appeal from appellants.

Judgment entered this 9th day of November, 2016.