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

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          36,319
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,163,422
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            179,974
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           19,720
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             37,910
<PP&E>                                          55,453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,650,228
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                   1,142,998
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            177,375
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               6,990
<LONG-TERM>                                     30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,681
<OTHER-SE>                                     295,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,650,228
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              109,689
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           104,310
<COMMISSIONS>                                  144,767
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    8,381
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,522
<COMPENSATION>                                 129,755
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                102,089
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     102,089
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,747
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.73


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter G.Schoonmaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date: November 15, 2010

 
|   | /s/ Peter G. Schoonmaker              |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Peter G. Schoonmaker                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Daniel Crane, Respondent, v Elizabeth Crane, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 225]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 25, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s cross motion for an order rescinding her 1999 transfer of title to a property in East Hampton, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Rescission of the subject property transfer is sought upon the ground that defendant was not paid for the transferred property interest in accordance with an alleged oral postnuptial agreement. The alleged oral agreement is said to have provided that plaintiff, in exchange for defendant’s transfer of the property to the parties as tenants-in-common, would pay defendant *573half the price paid for the property by defendant. Such agreement would be barred by the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703). Defendant has not shown that her transfer of the property was “unequivocally referable” to the alleged agreement so as to remove the agreement from the statute *(see Anostario v Vicinanzo,*59 NY2d 662, 664 [1983]). Indeed, the record discloses numerous possible explanations for the transfer, among them that before the transfer of title, plaintiff paid defendant the net proceeds from the sale of a home he had owned separately. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<PAGE>

                           JAY JACOBS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                   SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                    (in thousands)

                                Balance           Deferred           Balance
Description                     Beg. Of             Tax              End of
                                period             Expense           period
                                                  (Benefit)

Deferred tax valuation
 allowance:

         1997               $10,664          $(1,029)              $ 9,635

         1996               $ 9,746          $   918               $10,664

         1995               $ 4,985          $ 4,761               $ 9,746



                                       39


<PAGE>


                                    EXHIBIT INDEX

ITEM     DESCRIPTION

2.3  Loan and Security Agreement between LaSalle National Bank and the Company
     dated as of December 4, 1995.

2.4  $10,000,000 Note of the Company to LaSalle National Bank dated as of
     December 4, 1995.

21   Schedule of Subsidiaries.

23   Consent of Price Waterhouse LLP.

27   Financial Data Schedule.










                                       40


<PAGE>

                               SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES

    The Company's only subsidiary is J.J. Distribution Company, a Washington
    corporation.
















                                       41



<PAGE>

                      Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the Incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-16837, No. 33-36184, No. 33-58586 and No. 
33-95244) of Jay Jacobs, Inc. of our report dated April 25, 1996 appearing on 
Page 16 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference 
of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on page 38 
of this Form 10-K.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Seattle, Washington


May 13, 1997





                                       42
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 32047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16034]



[[Page 32045]]

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

Part II





The President





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



Executive Order 13510--Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect 
to the Republic of Belarus


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 32047]]

                Executive Order 13510 of July 1, 2009

                
Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect 
                to the Republic of Belarus

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including subsection 402(c)(2) of the Trade 
                Act of 1974, as amended (the ``Act'') (19 U.S.C. 
                2432(c)(2)), which continues to apply to the Republic 
                of Belarus pursuant to subsection 402(d) of the Act (19 
                U.S.C. 2432(d)), and having made the report to the 
                Congress set forth in subsection 402(c)(2), I hereby 
                waive the application of subsections (a) and (b) of 
                section 402 of the Act with respect to the Republic of 
                Belarus.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    July 1, 2009.

[FR Doc. E9-16034
Filed 7-2-09; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3195-W9-P
TSO10K2012-EX.10.38


Exhibit 10.38






AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
TESORO CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




THIS AGREEMENT, made at San Antonio, Texas, effective as set forth herein, by Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”):
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Tesoro Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify that Supplemental Matching Awards are not made with respect to Deferrals from Bonus Compensation; 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective January 1, 2011:
Section 2.2(c) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(c)    The Supplemental Match shall be in such percentage of the Participants' Compensation (excluding Bonus Compensation) deferred under this Plan as shall be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board in its sole discretion from year to year.  The Supplemental Match shall apply to each Participant as of the first payroll period during the Plan Year in which such Participant's Compensation (including Bonus Compensation) exceeds the limitations imposed under Section 401(a)(17) of the Code and shall be credited to the Participant's Deferral Account for such payroll period and each subsequent payroll period during the Plan Year in which the Participant is eligible for the Supplemental Match.”  
Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, the provisions of the Plan shall continue in full effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as conclusive evidence of the adoption of the foregoing, Tesoro Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and these presents to be fully executed in its name and behalf by its proper officer thereunto this 21st day of December, 2011. 


	
			
	 
	 
	TESORO CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	    /s/ CRAIG M. LATORRE

	 
	 
	Craig M. LaTorre

	 
	 
	VP, Human Resources & Communications

	 
	 
	 













1
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000447 05-JUN-2020 07:47 AM
Exhibit 10.02



 



Exhibit 10.02







P.O. Box 7850

Mountain View CA 94039-7850


December 3, 2001



 


Richard William Ihrie

Senior Vice President and

Chief Technology Officer

Intuit Inc.

P.O. Box 7850

Mountain View, CA 94039-7850


Re:    Forgiveness of Loan Interest



Dear Bill:


         This letter will confirm that on October 23, 2001, the Compensation
Committee of Intuit’s Board of Directors decided to forgive the remaining
unpaid accrued interest under your $1,960,000 promissory note to Intuit dated
November 28, 2000, as amended June 27, 2001.


Very truly yours,



 

/s/  Greg J. Santora
       Chief
Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARRS AND SMITH PARTNERSHIP 

and RICKEY SMITH,

 Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v.

SOMBRERO OIL AND GAS 

COMPANY, L.L.C.,

 Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00372-CV

Appeal from the

143rd Judicial District Court

of Ward County, Texas 

(TC# 11-11-22720-CVW) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

We further order that Appellee/Cross-Appellant recover from Appellants/Cross Appellees

and their sureties on the supersedeas bond, the amount of judgment, and that Appellee/CrossAppellant recover from Appellants/Cross Appellees all costs, both in this Court and the court 

below, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1







                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his
capacity as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that (a)
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (b) the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at
the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
period.






                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 954 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 954

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 8, 2020.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Oversight and Reform: Mr. Mfume (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Rouda).
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Mfume (to rank immediately after Ms. Davids 
of Kansas).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 167 Filed 02/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 559
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 September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

| (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

Dated:  November  16, 2007 

|   | By: /s/ Michael McChesney |
|--------|---------------------------|

|   | MICHAEL MCCHESNEY |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in
           the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 1997 and
           is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
           Statements.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                          <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               Dec-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 Dec-28-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<CASH>                                         133,897
<SECURITIES>                                    32,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,298
<INVENTORY>                                     66,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               371,689
<PP&E>                                       1,082,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                 403,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,084,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,590
<BONDS>                                        245,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           528
<OTHER-SE>                                     685,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,084,664
<SALES>                                        631,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               631,082
<CGS>                                          537,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  537,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (37,820)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (20,982)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22,103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,103)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($0.42)
        

</TABLE>
#### In re Complaint of JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.

No. 10-90096.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 10, 2011.

*982ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Complainant makes various allegations against a bankruptcy judge, but failed to certify that her statement of facts was made under penalty of perjury as required by Judicial-Conduct Rule 6(d).

When a complainant fails to make the required certification, “the complaint will be accepted for filing, but it will be reviewed under only Rule 5(b).” Judicial-Conduct Rule 6(d). Rule 5 authorizes the chief judge to identify a complaint when he becomes aware of possible misconduct outside of the formal complaint process. Most often this occurs when the judge learns about possible misconduct through news outlets or other informal sources, but it also authorizes the chief judge to identify a complaint despite noncompliance with Rule 6.

There are important differences between a complaint that is given full review under Rule 11 and one that is reviewed only under Rule 5. When a complaint is dismissed under Rule 11, a complainant has the right to petition the judicial council for review of the disposition. *See*Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(g)(3). A chief judge’s decision not to identify a complaint under Rule 5 is unappealable. *See*Commentary on Rule 5. Additionally, whereas Rule 11 requires judges to “prepare a supporting memorandum that sets forth the reasons for the disposition” before dismissing a complaint, no such statement of reasons is required in declining to identify a complaint under Rule 5. An unverified complaint will routinely be dismissed in a one-line order.

Most importantly, while Rule 11 articulates only a limited number of “allowable grounds” for dismissal, Rule 5 leaves the decision to identify a complaint almost entirely to the chief judge’s discretion. Under Rule 5, a chief judge is required to identify a complaint only “[i]f the evidence of misconduct is clear and convincing.” Judicial-Conduct Rule 5(a). The chief judge has “uncabined discretion” whether to identify a complaint under this rule. *Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of1980,*239 F.R.D. 116, 191 (2006) (“Breyer Committee Report”).

The commentary on Rule 5 advises against identifying a complaint where “[t]he matter [is] trivial and isolated, based on marginal evidence, or otherwise highly unlikely to lead to a misconduct or disability finding.” Commentary on Rule 5. Here, it’s clear from the face of the complaint that all of complainant’s allegations are merits-related and unsupported. *See*Breyer Committee Report, 239 F.R.D. at 246. Because complainant has provided nothing suggesting that further inquiry is needed, I decline to identify a complaint pursuant to Rule 5.

This order is being published to give notice to other complainants as to the consequences of failing to provide a certification, as required by our misconduct rules.

DISMISSED.
Criminal No. 07-143 (SRC)

V.

VINCENT YOUNG, et al.

ORDER REQUIRING

ACCOMODATION FOR

ATTORNEY TELEPHONECONFERENCES

This matter having been opened to the Court by Gregory E. Tomczak, appointed

counsel for Vincent Young, with consent of the United States (Melissa L Jampol, Asst.

U.S. Attorney appearing), and the Court finding good cause for the issuance of this

Order, and it is,

ORDERED that the FDC Philadelphia, Federal Detention Center, located

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania be required to provide inmate Vincent Young, Register No.

99820-555 and SBI No. 000883348B, with telephonic access to his attorney, Gregory E.

Tomczak, no later than 11 a.m. Friday, October 14, 2011 and at such other times until the

defendant is sentenced by this Court, as required by Mr. Tomczak, with two-hour notice

to prison officials.

SO ORDERED

HON. STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.

Dated: // /
#### MOINESTER v. WILSON & CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 5, 1940.

Louis J. Gribetz, of New York City, for ■plaintiff.

Vernon Murphy, of New York City, for defendant.

HULBERT, District Judge.

During the course of an examination of the defendant, after issue joined, pursuant to Rule 26, F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A. following ■section 723c, its attorney stipulated, in writing, to produce certain documents, the existence and location of which were the ■subject of inquiry. The examination was thereupon suspended. After a delay of •several weeks, the action meanwhile ap■pearing upon the trial calendar, defendant’s attorney reported his alleged inability to carry out the promise contained in the ■stipulation. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity for obviously he depended upon his client to supply the required documents.

Upon the record before me, however, it is incredible that these documents could not be made available to him, yet the facts • developed would not sustain an order directing their production for inspection under Rule 34, F.R.C.P., and the motion must be denied, with reluctance, but without ■prejudice.

Plaintiff’s attorney may resume and continue the examination and extend it in an endeavor to secure the last vestige of information relevant and not privileged. If it ultimately develops that the examination has been unduly obstructed and thereby the true administration of justice in this case impaired or impeded, the circumstances should be reported to the court for consideration and whatever action may be appropriate. Settle order.
Case 2:11-cv-00662-ES-MAH   Document 24   Filed 01/26/12   Page 1 of 5 PageID: 555

Case 2:11-cv-00662-ES-MAH   Document 24   Filed 01/26/12   Page 2 of 5 PageID: 556

Case 2:11-cv-00662-ES-MAH   Document 24   Filed 01/26/12   Page 3 of 5 PageID: 557

Case 2:11-cv-00662-ES-MAH   Document 24   Filed 01/26/12   Page 4 of 5 PageID: 558

Case 2:11-cv-00662-ES-MAH   Document 24   Filed 01/26/12   Page 5 of 5 PageID: 559