alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
     
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      6,487,427
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,526,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (99,585)
<INVENTORY>                                 3,238,113
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           12,270,106
<PP&E>                                      1,395,079
<DEPRECIATION>                               (655,206)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             14,068,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,503,875
<BONDS>                                     1,327,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                        31
<COMMON>                                        2,040
<OTHER-SE>                                  9,100,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               14,068,959
<SALES>                                    12,865,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           12,865,368
<CGS>                                       9,984,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               9,984,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            3,063,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             55,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (236,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (236,231)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (236,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5          
<LEGEND>                         
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from March 31,
1999 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            3,067,604
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       811,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                         38,095
<INVENTORY>                                         157,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4,415,523
<PP&E>                                            6,874,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,061,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10,067,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,860,595
<BONDS>                                           2,878,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,728
<OTHER-SE>                                        5,325,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     10,067,971
<SALES>                                           1,236,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,236,002
<CGS>                                              (947,403)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (1,193,444)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (94,065)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (13,113)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (111,417)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (998,910)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (998,910)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    4,170,315
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,171,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.22
        


</TABLE>
#### CURTIS PUB. CO. v. UNION LEADER CORP.

Civ. No. 934.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.

Jan. 29, 1952.

Orr & Reno, Concord, N. H., for plaintiff.

Upton, Sanders & Upton, Concord, N. H., ¿or defendant.

CONNOR, District Judge.

This action came on to be heard upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, tunder Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on the supporting affidavits and pleadings no triable issue is presented, and that summary judgment should be ordered.

The complaint of eight counts, containing one hundred eleven allegations, alleges infringement of a copyright owned by the plaintiff of a certain edition of The Saturday Evening Post, Volume 223, No. 29, dated January 13, 1951, a magazine published by the plaintiff. This issue includes, among other matters, an alleged original literary composition, written by Robert L. Sharpe and Bill Currie, entitled “God Saved My Life in Korea.”

The defendant answered each allegation of the complaint, and, by way of affirmative defense, alleged that: “It was induced, led and actuated by the plaintiff, its agents and servants, to copy and reprint said literary composition entitled ‘God Saved My Life in Korea’ ” from the plaintiff’s periodical.

Whatever merit there may be to the plaintiff’s contentions, I am of the view that the affirmative defense set up in paragraph 112 of defendant’s answer raises a genuine issue of fact. It cannot be said that the allegation upon its face is not material, and, if proven, would not constitute a valid defense. “A material or genuine issue of fact is raised when the facts alleged, if proven, are such as to constitute a legal defense.” Keehn v. Brady Transfer & Storage Co., 7 Cir., 159 F.2d 383, 385, 170 A.L.R. 999. The burden is upon the plaintiff, the moving party, to establish the nonexistence of a genuine issue of fact. Griffith v. William Penn Broadcasting Co., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 475, 477. In no respect has the plaintiff attempted to “pierce the allegation of fact” set up in the affirmative defense of the defendant. Although the plaintiff was not bound to file a responsive pleading to meet the defendant’s averment, which is taken as denied under Rule 8(d), there was otherwise available to it opportunity to assail the allegation as feigned or insubstantial.

The motion is denied.
/Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
Statement of registered  closed-end investment company with respect to purchases
of its own securities pursuant to Rule N-23(c)-1 during the last calendar month.

Report for the calendar month ending April 30, 1998

MFS Government Markets Income Trust
Date        Identification   Shares      Repurchase   NAV         Broker
            of Security      Repurchased Price
4/6/98      Shares of        35,000      6.75         7.49        Merrill Lynch
            Beneficial
            Interest
4/7/98      Shares of        190,000     6.8125       7.49        Merrill Lynch
            Beneficial
            Interest
4/16/98     Shares of        60,000      6.75         7.44        Merrill Lynch
            Beneficial
            Interest
4/22/98     Shares of        160,000     6.6875       7.42        Merrill Lynch
            Beneficial
            Interest






Total Shares Repurchased:  445,000
Remarks: None.

MFS Government Markets Income Trust
by:  W. Thomas London
         W. Thomas London
         Treasurer
| Company                                                                            | Ownership      % |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
|                                                                               |             |
| Sinoenergy      Holding Limited                                                    | 100%             |
|                                                                               |             |
| Qingdao      Sinogas General Machinery Limited Corporation (“Sinogas”) | 75.05%           |
|                                                                               |             |
| Qingdao      Sinogas Yuhan Chemical Equipment Company, Ltd.                        | 81%**            |
|                                                                               |             |
| Wuhan      Sinoenergy Gas Company Limited                                          | 80%*             |
|                                                                               |             |
| Pingdingshan      Sinoenergy Gas Company Limited                                   | 90%              |
|                                                                               |             |
| Jiaxing      Lixun Automotive Electronic Company Limited                           | 81%**            |
|                                                                               |             |
| Hubei      Gather Energy Company Limited                                           | 80%              |
|                                                                               |             |
| Xuancheng      Sinoenergy Vehicle Gas Company Limited                              | 100%             |
|                                                                               |             |
| Qingdao      Jingrun General Machinery Company Limited                             | 100%             |
|                                                                               |             |
| Qingdao      Sinoenergy General Machinery Company Limited                          | 100%             |

|   |                                                                                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| *      | This      subsidiary is owned 40% by Sinogas and 50% by Sinoenergy Holding      Limited. |
|   |                                                                                     |
| **     | This      subsidiary is owned 75% by Sinogas and 25% by Sinoenergy Holding      Limited. |
#### Marcos VILLAFUERTE ROCHA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72608.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Raul Ray, Esquire, The Law Offices of Raul Ray, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marcos Villafuerte Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for *677substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey,*534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Villafuerte Rocha was in-admissable for alien smuggling where the record contains Villafuerte Rocha’s sworn statement admitting that he knew the passengers in his car had no legal documentation to enter the United States, and that he had participated in making arrangements to pick them up in Mexico. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)©; *Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales,*487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th Cir.2007).

We reject Villafuerte Rocha’s due process claim regarding the manner in which the immigration officials obtained his statement. *See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS,*588 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir.1979) (no due process violation because “the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient” to prove coercion).

We lack jurisdiction to review Villaf-uerte Rocha’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 30, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1908 Lower Tribunal No. 16-28140

________________ 

### James A. Cummings, Inc., et al. ,

Appellants,
vs. 

### Procacci Dolphin, LLC, et al. ,

Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Katz Barron and Andrew J. Foti and H. Eugene Lindsey, III; and Nida & Romyn, P.C., and David C. Romyn (Los Angeles, CA), for appellants. Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, PL, and Robert A. Sweetapple and Douglas C. Broeker; Pankauski Hauser Lazarus PLLC and Robert J. Hauser (West Palm Beach); Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Michael J. Kurzman and Elizabeth Coppolecchia (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.2

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
No. 1296.

#### Duncan *v.*Ragen, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 16, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-30621 Summary Calendar

GABRIEL JENNINGS, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus FREDDICK MENIFEE, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

No. 1:05-CV-1483

--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Jennings, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition wherein he challenges his conviction under the federal arson statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). The districtcourt dismissed the petition as an abuse of the writ because Jennings had raised the same claim in an earlier § 2241 petition. We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition on the pleadings. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).No. 06-30621 -2- Jennings challenges his arson conviction under Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000). He argues that the issue in his current petition is whether he was convicted of a nonexistent offense under Jones. He posits that he did not raise this same issue in his prior petition, where, he asserts, he claimed that the district court improperly instructed the jury. Based on our review of the record and Jennings’s pleadings in his prior petition, both in the district court and on appeal, we conclude that Jennings raised the same challenge to his conviction based on the holding in Jones and the alleged lack of an interstate
commerce element to his offense. The district court did not err by holding that Jennings’s instant petition fails to raise a new issue and is an abuse of the writ. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED.
| NORTHEAST      BANCORP                                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Exhibit      11. Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                   |   | Three      Months Ended |   |   | Three      Months Ended |   |
|                                                                   |   | September      30, 2008 |   |   | September      30, 2007 |   |
| EQUIVALENT      SHARES:                                                |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      Average Shares Outstanding                               |   |   | 2,315,443 |   |   |   | 2,415,952 |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total      Diluted Shares                                              |   |   | 2,324,916 |   |   |   | 2,432,997 |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      Income                                                        |   | $ | 69,116 |   |   | $ | 430,565 |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic      Earnings Per Share                                          |   | $ | 0.03 |   |   | $ | 0.18 |   |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted      Earnings Per Share                                        |   | $ | 0.03 |   |   | $ | 0.18 |   |
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00324

- CR

Ramsey Orlando Guerrero v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Cause No. S

- 17

- 3327CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 8, 2019
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Albert H.
Nahmad, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Watsco, Inc.;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
August 9, 2013



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|                                        
|/s/ Albert H. Nahmad                    
|Albert H. Nahmad Chief
Executive Officer
#### MOORE v. ERIE COUNTY AGR. SOCIETY, et al.

Civ. A. 4896.

United States District Court W. D. New York.

Aug. 13, 1951.

*7Borins & Hoffman, Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Joseph Swart, Buffalo, N. Y., for Buffalo Trotting Ass’n, Inc.

Andrew, Shenwood & Viehe, Buffalo, N.Y., for Erie County Agr. Society.

KNIGHT, Chief Judge.

The defendant Buffalo Trotting Association moves under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative under Rule 12(e) to make the complaint more definite.

The complaint, Paragraph Eight, alleges, “By reason of the negligence and wrongful acts of commission and omission of both defendants, the plaintiff’s horses and equipment were wholly destroyed by fire and otherwise, on June 7th and 8th, 1951”.

The above is the particular paragraph which the defendant, the Buffalo Trotting Association, claims to be insufficient. With this I disagree.

Under the present Federal Rules it is not necessary that the pleading 'state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and it need only be a short and plain statement showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Circuit Judge Clark in Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 774, 775, stated: “Under the new rules of civil procedure, there is no pleading requirement of stating ‘facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,’ but only that there be ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’”; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a), 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. See also Atkinson v. Thompson, Trustee for Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 258.

The “technicalities are no longer of their former importance, and a short statement which fairly gives notice of the nature of the claim is a sufficient. compliance with the requirements of the rules.” Continental Colliers v. Shober, 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 631, 635, and see the cases therein cited. See also Moore’s Federal Practice 1653 (Second Edition) 1948, and many cases' cited.

Other means are available to the defendant to obtain information regarding the facts claimed to sustain the'charge of negligence.

Motion denied.
PGEM - EX10.34 - 2012.12.31 - 10K


Exhibit 10.34


December 17, 2012
Shawn K. Poe
122 Westongate Way
Cary, NC 27513


Re:    Renewal of Amended and Restated Retention Agreement
Dear Shawn:
This letter is to serve as your notification that Ply Gem Industries, Inc. has elected to execute its Renewal Term right under your current Amended and Restated Retention Agreement dated November 7, 2008 for a period of one year.  As such, all applicable rights and terms as outlined in your Amended and Restated Retention Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2013.
Please sign this letter in the space provided below as your acknowledgement and agreement of this Renewal Term agreement and return this original to me, and retain a copy for your own records.


	
		
	 
	Sincerely,

	 
	 

	 
	PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Name:  Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ Shawn K. Poe
	 

	Shawn K. Poe