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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,762
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                   692
<INVENTORY>                                    17,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               57,861
<PP&E>                                         111,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 53,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,491
<BONDS>                                        104,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       706
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,482
<SALES>                                        64,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,323
<CGS>                                          55,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  55,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (327)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 203
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 2 of 18 PageID: 204
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 3 of 18 PageID: 205
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 4 of 18 PageID: 206
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 5 of 18 PageID: 207
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 6 of 18 PageID: 208
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 7 of 18 PageID: 209
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 8 of 18 PageID: 210
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 9 of 18 PageID: 211
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 10 of 18 PageID: 212
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 11 of 18 PageID: 213
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 12 of 18 PageID: 214
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 13 of 18 PageID: 215
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 14 of 18 PageID: 216
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 15 of 18 PageID: 217
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 16 of 18 PageID: 218
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 219
Case 3:11-cv-00720-JAP-TJB Document 13 Filed 05/17/11 Page 18 of 18 PageID: 220
**Exhibit 14.1**

**ARCHON CORPORATION**

***Audit Committee Guidelines***

***for Pre-Approval of Independent Auditor Services***

**As Revised December 20, 2006**

The Audit Committee (the “Committee”) has adopted thefollowing guidelines regarding the engagement of the Archon Corporation’s (the “Company”) independent auditor to perform services for the Company: 

For audit services, the Committee will approve the appointment of the independent auditor in an audit committee meeting. If approved by the Committee, an engagement letter with fee amounts will be formally approved bythe Committee, after it has been reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, at the next Committee meeting. 

For non-auditservices, Company management will submit to the Committee for approval (during the first or second fiscal quarter of each year) the list of non-audit services that it recommends the Committee engage the independent auditor to provide for the fiscalyear. Company management and the independent auditor will each confirm to the Committee that each non-audit service on the list is permissible under all applicable legal requirements. In addition to the list of planned non-audit services, a budgetestimating all non-audit service spending for the fiscal year will be provided. The Committee will approve both the list of permissible non-audit services and the total budget for such services. The Committee will be informed routinely as to thenon-audit services actually provided by the independent auditor pursuant to this pre-approval process. 

To ensure prompt handling ofunexpected matters, the Committee delegates to the chairperson of the Committee (the “Chair”) the authority to amend or modify the list of approved permissible non-audit services and fees. The Chair will report action taken to theCommittee at the next Committee meeting. 

The independent auditor must ensure that all audit and non-audit services provided to the Companyhave been approved by the Committee. The Company’s Chief Financial Officer will be responsible for tracking all independent auditor non-audit fees against the total budget for such services and report at least annually to the Committee. Anyproposed services exceeding the maximum level will require specific pre-approval by the Committee or its Chairman. 

The pre-approvalrequirement of non-audit services is subject to waiver pursuant to the de minimus exception set forth in Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which requires that following conditions are met: (i) the aggregateamount such non-audit services provided to the Company constitutes not more than five (5) percent of the total amount of revenues paid by the Company to its auditor during the fiscal year in which non-audit service are provided; (ii) suchservices were not recognized by the Company at the time of the engagement to be non-audit services; and (iii) such services are promptly brought to the attention of the Committee and approved prior to the completion of the audit by theCommittee or by the Chair.
# table1_q1_naics
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                         134,011
<SECURITIES>                                   130,788
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                    52,351
<INVENTORY>                                        373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               554,402
<PP&E>                                          73,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,354,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          669,746
<BONDS>                                         10,344
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           388
<OTHER-SE>                                    (65,220)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,354,987
<SALES>                                      1,428,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,454,308
<CGS>                                        1,265,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,763,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (312,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (35,281)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (277,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (277,685)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.16)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 1, 2011

p0525 

# Order

June 1, 2011

142535

VESTAX SECURITIES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142535 COA: 292062 Ct of Claims: 07-000065-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 28, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The evidentiary record does not support th e Court of Appeals determination that the independent registered representatives were th e plaintiff’s agents or that there exists a substantial nexus between Michigan and the plaintiff’s business activities sufficient to impose Michigan Single Busine ss Tax upon it. We REMAND this case to the Court of

Claims for reinstatement of the April 27, 2009 or der granting summary disposition to the plaintiff.

M ARILYN K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.
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



I, Ricardo E. Khayatte, Jr., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IndieMV Media Group, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 IndieMV Media Group, Inc.



|                    |  |                                                 |  | 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2008 |  |                                                
|                    |  |                                                
|                    |  |                                                
|                    |  | /s/ Ricardo E. Khayatte, Jr.                    | 
|                    |  | Ricardo E. Khayatte, Jr.                       
|                    |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|                    |  | IndieMV Media Group, Inc.                      





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IndieMV Media Group, Inc. and will be retained by IndieMV Media Group, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1163 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion 

for assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student loan 

repayment or forgiveness programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. 

KING, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. 

RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants 

in certain veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Medicine 

5 Loan Repayment Program Enhancement Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1163 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO PAR2 TICIPANTS IN CERTAIN VETERINARY STU3 DENT LOAN REPAYMENT OR FORGIVENESS 

4 PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 108(f) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘such Act,’’, 

8 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert9 ing ‘‘, under section 1415A of the National Agricul10 tural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act 

11 of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3151a), or under any other State 

12 loan repayment or loan forgiveness program that is 

13 intended to provide for increased access to veteri14 nary services in such State.’’, and 

15 (3) by striking ‘‘STATE’’ in the heading and in16 serting ‘‘OTHER’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to amounts received by an indi19 vidual in taxable years beginning after December 31, 

20 2018. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KAZ MIKOL-CHARLS CATALANO, )

DOC #C11636, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1845

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee

County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge.

Luke Newman of Luke Newman, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2008 as furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
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 Fund.

|       |                   |     |                               |                                                      
|------ | ----------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: | October
 29, 2008 |     | RIDGEWOOD
 ENERGY T FUND, LLC
|       |                   |     |                               |                                                      
|       |                   | By: | /s/ ROBERT E.
 SWANSON       
|       |                   |     |                               |                                                      
|       |                   |     | Name:                         | Robert E.
 Swanson                                   
|       |                   |     | Title:                        | President
 and Chief Executive Officer               
|       |                   |     |                               | (Principal
 Executive Officer)                       
|       |                   |     |                               |                                                      
|Dated: | October
 29, 2008 |     |                               |                                                      
|       |                   | By: | /s/ KATHLEEN P.
 McSHERRY    
|       |                   |     |                               |                                                      
|       |                   |     | Name:                         | Kathleen P.
 McSherry                                
|       |                   |     | Title:                        | Executive
 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|       |                   |     |                               | (Principal
 Financial and Accounting Officer)        

A signed
original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy T Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 21
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 22
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 23
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 24
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 25
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 26
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 27
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 28
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 29
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 30
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 31
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 32
Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 33
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 15, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00091

- CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

,

Appellant

v.

Hector R. RAMIREZ

, Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Web b County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CVT002640

- D4 Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s reply brief i s due on Dec em ber 1 2 , 2017

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(c).
Before the due date , Appellant filed a n unopposed first motion for extension of time to file the reply brief until January 1 1 , 2018 , for an extension of thirty days.

Appellant ’ s motion is GRANTED. Appellant ’ s reply brief is due on January 1 1 , 2018

. See id. R. 38.6(d).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of December, 2 017

.

__________________________________ _ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2212
RHONDA R. BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-1564-JFM) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rhonda R. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Nathan Braverman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1981 &Supp. 1995), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (1988), alleging retaliatory discharge. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordi ngly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene , No. CA-90-1564-JFM (D. Md. May 12, 1995). 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
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Schroeder, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7858.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-7858

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SCHROEDER, APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Schroeder, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7858.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Grimes and cause 

remanded. 

(No. 2016-0570―Submitted June 7, 2017―Decided September 28, 2017.) 

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, 

No. L-14-1228, 2016-Ohio-849. 

_________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

State v. Grimes, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-2927, __ N.E.3d ___, and this 

cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our 

decision in Grimes. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, O’NEILL, and FISCHER, JJ., concur. 

FRENCH, J., concurs in judgment only. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

KENNEDY, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

DEWINE, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 

for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in State v. Grimes, ___ Ohio St.3d 

___, 2017-Ohio-2927, __ N.E.3d ___. 

_________________ 

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant. 

_________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEVIN COLEMAN,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 301, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for Kent County

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1303004663 and

§ 1303012706

§

Submitted: June 29, 2015

 Decided: July 17, 2015

O R D E R

This 17th day of July 2015, it appears to the Court that, on June 15, 2015, the 

appellant filed an appeal from a Superior Court Commissioner’s order denying his 

motion for recusal. The Clerk issued a notice to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory 

criminal appeal. The appellant failed to respond within the required ten-day 

period;1 therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice

 1 We acknowledge Coleman’s untimely response filed on July 6. Even if the Court were to 

consider his untimely filing, it would not change the outcome.