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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from OroAmerica,
Inc.'s Consolidated Balance Sheet at October 27, 2000 (Unaudited) and
Consolidated Statement of Income for the Thirty-nine Weeks Ended October 27,
2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000824435
<NAME>                        OroAmerica, Inc.


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            FEB-02-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-27-2000
<CASH>                                            10,818
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     43,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                       9,701
<INVENTORY>                                       15,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  65,993
<PP&E>                                            30,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                    16,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    88,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             16,613
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               6
<OTHER-SE>                                        72,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      88,662
<SALES>                                          112,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 112,322
<CGS>                                             91,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     91,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    3,192
<INCOME-TAX>                                       1,181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                2,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                       238
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       2,249
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.39



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Vivian OO., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Respondent; James OO., Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 672]

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), entered November 3, 2005, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent’s child to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

Following a hearing, Family Court found, among other things, that respondent had permanently neglected his four-year-old daughter. The court then terminated his parental rights, as well as those of the child’s mother. Respondent now appeals, arguing that Family Court erred in making both determinations. As to the determination of the mother’s parental rights, however, respondent cannot be considered an aggrieved party, and this aspect of his appeal must be dismissed *(see*CPLR 5511; *Matter of Dana XX.,*28 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2006]; *Matter of William XX. v Broome County Dept, of Social Servs.,*11 AD3d 735, 736 [2004]; *Matter of Dana S.,*249 AD2d 582, 584 [1998]).

As to respondent’s contention that his own rights should not have been terminated, we note that he did not testify at the fact-finding hearing, permitting Family Court to draw the strongest inference against him that petitioner’s evidence would allow *(see Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v*
      *1097
      *Denise J.,*87 NY2d 73, 79 [1995]; *Matter of Antonio NN.,*28 AD3d 826, 827 [2006]; *Matter of Karina U,*299 AD2d 772, 773 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 501 [2003]). Petitioner established that respondent had not sought permanent housing and was not participating in sex offender treatment as his service plan required. His “failure to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child is interpreted as the failure to plan for the child’s future” (Matter *of Karina U, supra*at 773; *see Matter of Princess C.,*279 AD2d 825, 826 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 606 [2001]). Thus, the record amply supports Family Court’s determination.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6148

ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CONNIE JORDAN; JUDGE J. HOCKENBURY; JUDGE LANIER; RODDEY BROWN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:08-ct-03143-H)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Annis Recardo Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Annis Recardo Lloyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action alleging violation of his constitutional rights. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lloyd v. Jordan , No. 5:08-ct-03143-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2009). We deny Lloyd’s motion for injunctive relief and motion to compel. 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
#### KAMOSES v. MARTIN.

No. 5766.

District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

Jan. 25, 1947.

Edward P. Frolick, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

John P. Neudorfer, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

LEDERLE, District Judge.

This case, claiming treble damages for alleged rental overcharges under 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 925(e), having come on to be heard upon the motion of Mary S. Kamoses, Administratrix of the Estate of Louis Kamoses, (who has died since institution of this case) to be substituted as *586party plaintiff, and upon the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and

The court having heard arguments thereon, and briefs having been filed and considered,

Now, Therefore, it is Ordered:

1. That said motion for substitution be, and it is hereby overruled, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss be, and i't is hereby granted and the cause dismissed, for the reason that plaintiff’s action is one for a penalty, which abated upon the death of the plaintiff and did not by law survive to his administratrix. See: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Bowles v. Farmers Nat. Bank, 6 Cir., 147 F.2d 425; Bishop v. Rosin, D.C., D.C.E.D. Mich., S.D., 69 F.Supp. 915 (to the same effect); Continental Baking Co. v. Wood-ring, D.C., 55 F.2d 347, 350, affirmed 286 U.. S. 352, 52 S.Ct. 595, 76 L.Ed. 1155, 81 A.L. R. 1402 (as to the rule of comity between courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, sitting in the same district); Fletcher v. Grinnell, D.C., 64 F.Supp. 778 (holding that an-action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., survives to the deceased’s employee’s administrator).

2. Defendant having waived costs in open court on January 13, 1947, no costs will be . allowed either party. See: Rule 54(d).
**Exhibit No. 32**

 

 

Barnwell Industries, Inc.

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted by

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of theundersigned officers of Barnwell Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2003 of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition as of September 30, 2003 and consolidated results of operations forthe year ended September 30, 2003 of the Company and its subsidiaries.

 

 
| Dated: | December 23,  2003              |   |       /s/Morton  H. Kinzler |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Morton  H. Kinzler        |
|   | Title: Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 
| Dated: | December 23,  2003              |   |       /s/Russell  M. Gifford |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  Russell M. Gifford       |
|   | Title: Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part ofthe Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.

 

Asigned original of the written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 10.8
Amendment to Appendix 1 – Scope of Employment
This document serves as an amendment to the vacation paragraph within your most recent employment agreement appendix. The below paragraph replaces the paragraph related to vacation in its entirety. This amendment does not constitute a new employment agreement or alter any other terms of your employment with Enfusion.
In accordance with Enfusion’s Flexible Time Off policy effective July 1, 2022, which may be amended from time to time, Employee is entitled to flexible time off as needed each calendar year. Flexible Time Off will not accrue or vest and therefore will not be paid out at the time of separation of employment. Any unused and unexpired accrued vacation days that Employee earned under the previous policy will expire on December 31, 2022 if unused by the Employee. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or before December 31, 2022, the Employee will receive a final payment for all vested paid vacation time through their Termination Date. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or after January 1, 2023, in accordance with Enfusion’s vacation policy, Employee will not be paid out for any expired accrued vacation days. Any employee beginning employment after July 1, 2022 will not accrue vacation days.
/s/ Bronwen Bastone
Bronwen Bastone
Chief People Officer
July 01, 2022
/s/ Dan Groman
Daniel (Dan) Groman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Casey A. Jefferson, Also Known as Casey Riggins, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered October 13, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, BJ., Centra, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT 12.1



APOGENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                          |  | Fiscal Year Ended September 30, |         | Six MonthsEnded March 31, 2003
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | ------- | ------------------------------
|                                          |  | 1998                            |         | 1999                          
|Fixed Charges:                            |  |                                 |         |                               
|Interest expense                          |  | $                               | 35,270  |                               
|Deferred financing                        |  |                                 | 151     |                               
|1/3 Rental expense                        |  |                                 | 1,343   |                               
|                                          |  |                                 |         |                               
|                                          |  | $                               | 36,764  |                               
|Earnings:                                 |  |                                 |         |                               
|Pre tax income from continuing operations |  | $                               | 85,789  |                               
|Add: Fixed charges                        |  |                                 | 36,764  |                               
|Earnings                                  |  |                                 | 122,553 |                               
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        |  |                                 | 3.3x    |                               
|                                          |  |                                 |         |                               
|Rental Expense                            |  | $                               | 4,028   |                               
|                                          |  |                                 |         |
#### Tiffany Applewhite et al., Respondents, v Accuhealth, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted May 28, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

Motion by New York State Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
#### Rickey R. LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW HANOVER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; Lieutenant Murphy; Sidney A. Causey; Chief Parker, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-6994.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

Rickey R. Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

*224Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rickey R. Lloyd appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lloyd v. New Hanover County Sheriff Dep’t,*No. 5:06-ct-03033-H (E.D.N.C. May 16, 2006). 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.*
#### In the Matter of Zakeima M.B., Respondent, v Wesley B., Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 17]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Diane Costanzo, Ref.), entered on or about March 5, 2013, which found, after a hearing, that respondent had committed the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him to stay away from petitioner Zakeima B.’s home and place of employment for a period of one year, except for incidental contact between the parties to effectuate the Family Court’s order of visitation with the parties’ minor child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent committed the family offense of disorderly conduct was supported by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 832; Penal Law § 240.20). Respondent’s intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly create a risk thereof, could be readily inferred from the circumstances *(see People v Baker,*20 NY3d 354, 360 [2013]). The credible evidence established that the intoxicated respondent went to petitioner’s building uninvited on a Sunday night, and, when refused entry into petitioner’s apartment, used profanity as he yelled at her through her door from inside of the public hallway for 15 minutes, and stepped on a bag of food that had been delivered to petitioner’s apartment. Respondent’s conduct was so disruptive that it prompted petitioner’s neighbors to contact her to verify that she was safe, and drew respondent’s friends to the scene to intervene after they heard the disturbance in the background when they called respondent on his cell phone. There is no basis for disturbing the credibility determinations made by the Referee *(see Matter of Marisela N. v Lacy M.S.,*101 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1


 


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
POLICY


 


The Board of Directors of CNS Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the “Company”) has approved the following Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy (this “Policy”),
which establishes compensation to be paid to non-employee directors of the Company, effective as of July 14, 2021, to provide an inducement
to obtain and retain the services of qualified persons to serve as members of the Company’s Board of Directors.


 


Applicable Persons


 


This Policy shall apply to each director of the
Company who is not an employee of, or compensated consultant to, the Company or any Affiliate (each, an “Outside Director”).
“Affiliate” shall mean a corporation which is a direct or indirect parent or subsidiary of the Company, as determined pursuant
to Section 424 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


 


Cash Fees


 


Commencing July 1, 2021, the following annual cash
fees shall be paid to the Outside Directors and to each Outside Director serving as Chairperson of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee
and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, as applicable:


 


	Cash
	Base	Committee
    Chair	Committee
    Member
	Audit	Compensation	Nominating
    & 

    Governance	Audit	Compensation	Nominating
    & 

    Governance
	 $40,000 	 $12,000 	 $7,700 	 $5,500 	 $5,500 	 $4,000 	 $3,500 


 


Note: Chair and Committee member compensation are
not additive.


 


*       In addition,
the Lead Independent Director position shall receive an additional annual fee of $12,000.


 


Per meeting payment. In addition, each Outside
Director shall receive $2,500 attendance at face-to-face board meetings (no compensation for telephonic meetings).


 


Cash payments payable to Outside Directors shall
be paid quarterly in arrears. For any portion of a fiscal year in which the Outside Director begins providing service, quarterly payments
shall be pro-rated based on a 365-day year calculation. If an Outside Director dies, resigns or is removed during any quarter, he or she
shall be entitled to a cash payment on a pro rated basis through his or her last day of service based on a 365-day year calculation.


 


Expenses


 


Upon presentation of documentation of such expenses
reasonably satisfactory to the Company, each Outside Director shall be reimbursed for his or her reasonable out-of-pocket business expenses
incurred in connection with attending meetings of the Board of Directors and Committees thereof or in connection with other business related
to the Board of Directors.


 


Amendments


 


The Compensation Committee or the Board of Directors
shall review this Policy from time to time to assess whether any amendments in the type and amount of compensation provided herein should
be adjusted in order to fulfill the objectives of this Policy.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUTH STAIRS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-17240

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00132-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 10, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ruth Stairs, a successful Social Security benefits claimant, appeals the

district court’s reduction of her request for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access

to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). We review a district court’s denial of

FILED

JUN 10 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

attorneys’ fees under the EAJA for abuse of discretion. See Lewis v. Barnhart, 281

F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

In its denial or reduction of attorneys’ fees, the district court must offer a

clear and concise explanation, but the explanation does not need to be elaborate. 

Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). A district

court has “substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award.” 

Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990). 

Here, the magistrate judge adequately explained his reasoning for reducing

attorney Sengthiene Bosavanh’s fees for reviewing various documents, duplicating

work, and preparing EAJA time sheets. He also adequately explained his reasons

for reducing attorney Ralph Wilborn’s fees for preparing the opening and reply

briefs and the EAJA time sheets. The magistrate judge appropriately recognized

that many issues from the Confidential Letter Brief likely overlapped with the

issues raised in the opening and reply briefs, reducing the time necessary to prepare

those briefs. The magistrate judge was in a better position to judge the

reasonableness of the time requested because he was familiar with the attorneys’

work product. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (district court has

significant discretion due to its “superior understanding of the litigation and the
3

desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual

matters”). 

AFFIRMED.
#### METZ v. ABNEY.

Before DanTzeER, J., Richland, November, 1902.

Appeal dismissed.

Action by Levi Metz against B. L. Abney, Jno. P. Thomas, Jr., and J. S. Verner. This is the same case reported in 64 S. C., 254, wherein a new trial was ordered. The case thereupon came up on its merits and the jury rendered a verdict for the ‘defendants. The plaintiff served notice of appeal, but failed to prosecute the same, and on motion of R. W. Shand, for defendants, and W. H. Lyles, for plaintiff, consenting, the appeal was dismissed by the clerk of this Court by order dated April 11,1903.