alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In connection with the Annual Report of One Price Clothing Stores, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the periods ending February 1, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that (i) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered by the
Report.


                   /s/ Leonard M. Snyder
                   -------------------------------------------------------------
                   Leonard M. Snyder,
                   Chief Executive Officer

May 19, 2003
Exhibit 10.11

Revolving Note

Revcare, Inc. (the "Company") promises to pay upon demand to the order of Manuel Occiano or Russell E. Mohrmann ("Note Holder"), the sum of Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand and no/100 Dollars or the unpaid portion of any advances made under this note plus interest and costs actually incurred under the Imperial Bank Master Revolving Note ("Master Note") between
Imperial Bank and the Note Holder dated September 24, 2001.

The
Company acknowledges that this Note matures upon issuance, and that the note Holder, at any time, without notice, and without reason, may demand that this note be immediately paid in
full.

The
Company waives presentment, demand, protest, notice of dishonor, notice of demand or intent to demand, notice of acceleration or intent to accelerate, and all other notices and
agrees that no extension or indulgence to the Company or release, substitution or nonenforcement of any security, or release or substitution of the Company, or any other party, whether with or without
notice, shall affect the obligation of the undersigned. The Company waives all defenses or right to discharge available under Section 3-605 of the California Uniform Commercial Code and waives all
other suretyship defenses or right to discharge.

The
Company agrees to reimburse the Note Holder for any and all costs and expenses incurred in collecting or attempting to collect this note or incurred in any other matter or proceeding
relating to this note or the Master Note.

The
Company acknowledges and agrees that there are no contrary agreements, oral or written, establishing a term of this Note and agrees that the terms and conditions of this Note may not
be amended, waived or modified except in a writing signed by the Note Holder expressly stating that the writing constitutes an amendment, waiver or modification of the terms of this Note. If any
provision of this Note is unenforceable in whole or part for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be effective. This Note is made in the State of California and shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws principles. Disputes arising under this agreement are to be settled by Binding
Arbitration with the loser paying all costs incurred in the arbitration process.

|Revcare, Inc. |                                                       | September 28, 2001
|------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------
|              |                                                       |                   
|              | by: Fred McGee, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |                   

---

QuickLinks
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3993

___________ Robbin Irene Oliver, * * Appellant, * * v. * State of Oklahoma; Brad Henry, * Governor; County of LeFlore; Rob * Wallace, District Attorney for LeFlore * Appeal from the United States County, Oklahoma; City of Heavener * District Court for the Municipal Court; City of Heavener * Western District of Arkansas. Municipal Police; Drew Edmondson, * Attorney General for the State of * Oklahoma; Terry Amend, Attorney * [UNPUBLISHED] for the City of Heavener, Oklahoma; * Doug Smuck, Municipal Court Judge; * Tommi J. West, Municipal Court Clerk; * Derek Woodral; Loren Haberson; * Joseph Guzman; Douglas Schmuck, * Attorney for the Oklahoma Department * of Health and Human Services; Danita * Williams, Judge, District Court for * LeFlore County, Oklahoma, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 21, 2005 Filed: July 8, 2005

___________ Before SMITH, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
-2- ___________ PER CURIAM. Robbin Oliver appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We summarily affirm, but given Oliver’s statement to the district court that she did not intend that certain material she submitted to the district court be construed as part of her complaint, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice as to defendants Judge Danita Williams and Attorney Douglas Schmuck. We deny all pending motions.

______________________________
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Michael S. Gross, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Marathon
Acquisition Corp.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Dated this14thday of November 2006.



|    |  |                                                                         
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael S. Gross                                                    
|    |  | Michael S. Gross Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

Purpose

The Employer Reporting System (ERSNet) (at https://secure.rrb.gov/ERSNet/login.aspx), is an 

official United States Government Internet website intended for use by employers covered under 

the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts in filing service and 

compensation reports with the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) and related activities.

Overview of ERSNet Internet Reporting Website

ERSNet includes or will include:

• roles-based access system,

• forms that employers can complete and file on line with RRB,

• informational notices made available to employers on line,

• request forms sent to employers for their response,

• summary reports of compensation processed on the system, and

• email notices to employers and email comments to RRB.

Overview of This Part

This part consists of the following chapters:

1. Introduction;

2. General Instructions for accessing and using the ERSNet System;

3. How to Initiate a service and compensation report to RRB;

a. BA-4, Report of Creditable Compensation Adjustments,

b. BA-6a, Form BA-6 Address Report,

c. BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation NEW!

d. BA-11, Report of Gross Earnings NEW!

4. How to reply to a form request from RRB;

a. BA-6a, Form BA-6 Address Report,

b. GL-129a, Record of Employer Determination on Employee Protest

c. ID-4K, Prepayment Notice of Employee's Applications and Claims for Benefits under the 

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act,

d. ID-4E, Notice of RUIA Claim Determinations.

5. Informational notices to employers (RESERVED);

6. Email: Notices to employers and employer comments to RRB;

7. Summary reports of compensation processed using this system; and

8. Guidelines for Access and Security

What is NOT in This Part

The instructions in this Part are limited to using ERSNet. Instructions for determining what 

constitutes creditable and reportable service and compensation are found in Part IV of these 
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions

Chapter 1: Introduction

2

reporting instructions. Finally, Form BA-12, Application for Employer Reporting System, can be 

located in the Forms portion of these reporting instructions.
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.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# SUMMARY:

                        U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to                         *Ross_A._Rutledge@omb.eop.gov*                         or tax to 202-395-7285. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*OMB Number:*                     OMB 0412-0570.                

*Form Number:*                     N/A.                

*Title:*                     USAID 22 CFR 226.91, Marking Requirements, “Branding Strategy” and “Marking Plan”.                

*Type of Submission:*                     Reinstatement of Information Collection.                

*Purpose:*                     The information collection consists of the requirement for Apparent Successful Applicants to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan as defined in the Final Rule (70 FR 50188, August 26, 2005), The information collected will be the Apparent Successful Applicant's proposal on how to brand and mark with the USAID Identify, the USAID funded program, project, activity, public communication or commodity. Respondents will consist of only those applicants for USAID funding who have been requested to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan by the Agreement Officer.                

## Annual Reporting Burden

*Respondents:*                     500.                

*Total Annual Responses:*                     500.                

*Total Annual Hours Requested:*                     1,750 hours.                

Dated: June 19, 2009.

Sylvia Lankford,

Acting Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services Bureau for Management.

[FR Doc. E9-15110 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
@book{1206246,
  author = {Mary E. Dal-Favero},
  title = {Title},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-02 00:05:00},
  publisher = {Publishers Name, City, MD},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         479,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     59,066
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               576,663
<PP&E>                                          49,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 610,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    368,133
<COMMON>                                     7,760,805
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   610,542
<SALES>                                        702,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               702,855
<CGS>                                          134,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  877,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,985
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (318,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (318,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (318,005)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.08)



</TABLE>
# Result 22.7
NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD

Criminal District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas 

July 16, 2015 

 

Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: Mark Anthony Garcia v. The State of Texas 

 Cause No. 04-13-000818-CR

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

The State has received a copy of the Petition for Discretionary Review filed by the 

Appellant in this matter. The State waives its right to respond to the Petition for 

Discretionary Review. However, if the Court grants the Petition, the State will file a brief 

on the merits. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Lauren Scott 

LAUREN SCOTT 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County, Texas 

Paul Elizondo Tower 

101 W. Nueva 

(210) 335-2885 

S.B.N. 24066843 

cc: Mark Anthony Garcia 

 Pro Se 

 Garza West Unit 

 4250 Hwu 202 

 Beeville, Texas 78102 

 

Attorney for the State 

04-13-00818-CR

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/16/2015 2:49:11 PM

Accepted 7/17/2015 11:21:34 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Exhibit 23.1
   (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-29038) pertaining to the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
Retirement Plan,
 (2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-78474) pertaining to the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. 1993
Stock Option Plan,
 (3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-05309) pertaining to the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
1996 Stock Option Plan,
 (4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64530) pertaining to the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
2001 Stock Incentive Plan,
 (5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-112825) pertaining to the First Essex Bancorp, Inc.
1987 Stock Option Plan, the First Essex Bancorp, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, and the First
Essex Bancorp, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan,
 (6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-115528) pertaining to the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. 2004 Broad-Based Stock Incentive
Plan and the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. Bonus Recognition and Retention Plan,
 (7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117621) pertaining to the Seacoast Financial
Services Corporation 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, the Seacoast Financial Services Corporation
1999 Stock Incentive Plan, the Abington Bancorp, Inc. 2000 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock
Option Plan, the Abington Bancorp, Inc. 1997 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the
Abington Bancorp, Inc. 1986 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan and the Massachusetts
Fincorp, Inc. 1999 Stock-Based Incentive Plan,
 (8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122274) pertaining to the Waypoint Financial Corp.
Retirement Savings Incentive Plan, the Waypoint Financial Corp. 2001 Stock Option Plan, the
Harris Financial, Inc. 1999 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the Harris Financial, Inc. 1999 Stock
Option Plan for Outside Directors, the York Financial Corp. 1997 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan, the Harris Savings Bank 1996 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the York Financial Corp. 1995
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Directors, the Harris Savings Bank 1994 Incentive Stock
Option Plan, the Harris Savings Bank 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, and the
York Financial Corp. Non-Incentive Stock Option Plan for Directors,
 (9)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134976) pertaining to the Independence Community
Bank Corp. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan and Trust
   (12)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-144700) pertaining to the Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
2006 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLPPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
February 26, 2010
# covid_table60_c71_size_class
@article{1215131,
  author = {Craig M. Shakarji and Vijay Srinivasan},
  title = {Toward a New Mathematical Definition of Datums in Standards to Support Advanced Manufacturing},
  year = {2023},
  number = {23},
  month = {2023-04-30 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054304},
  language = {en},
}
#### STEVENSON v. MELADY et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 6, 1940.

*330Regan & Barrett, of New York City (Edward G. Bathon, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

McCauley, Spiegelberg, Davis & Gallagher, of New York City (George A. Spiegelberg, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant John Melady & Co.

LEIBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion to compel defendant, Richard J. Buck, a member of the defendant firm of John Melady & Co., to answer certain questions on an examination before trial.

The plaintiff’s complaint presents six causes of action. In substance, he seeks to recover upon an alleged contract entered into by and between himself and defendant, John Melady & Company, whereby it was agreed that defendant Melady should employ plaintiff as a salesman of securities. Assertedly defendant Melady “promised that they would pay to plaintiff a sum equal to 50% of the net profits derived from any business produced through the plaintiff or his customers”. In particular, plaintiff seeks to recover profits made by defendant Melady in dealing in the unlisted securities of Muller Brass Company and F. L. Jacobs Company.

The objections made by defendant Buck to the questions proposed on the examination before trial are all of one type. He objects to disclosing how many shares of Muller Brass Company stock his firm bought and sold during the period of plaintiff’s employment, and to disclosing the names of the purchasers or sellers of the Muller Brass Company stock or the Jacobs Company stock. Specifically he has refused to answer unless plaintiff claims that all or some paritcular sale was made to or from a customer of his, on the ground that unless the examination is limited to transactions with plaintiff’s customers, it is outside the issues raised by the pleadings. I cannot so conclude at this time. That can be determined better at the trial.

However, by means of the questions he has asked, plaintiff may discover business produced for defendant, Melady & Co., through plaintiff. To limit an examination to matters relevant to only the precise issues presented by the pleadings, would not only be contrary to the express purposes of rule 26 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c (Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corp., D. C., 27 F.Supp. 946), but also might result in a complete failure to afford plaintiff an adequate opportunity to obtain information that would be useful at the trial. In fact, in the amended complaint plaintiff pleads that in violation of the agreement defendant Melady failed to disclose to plaintiff the extent of Melady’s trading in the stock.

I am satisfied that the questions presently objected to appear to be or may be relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action (Rule 26) and for that reason I shall order them to be answered. Motion granted. Submit order on notice.