alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 323

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Marina Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2003

Mr. PORTER (for himself, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. QUINN, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. FROST, 

Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MCHUGH, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. ROGERS of 

Kentucky, Mr. SAXTON, and Ms. LEE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Marina Day.

Whereas Americans place a high value on recreation time and 

the ability to access one of the United States’ greatest 

natural resources, its waterways; 

Whereas, in 1928, the word ‘‘marina’’ was adopted by the 

National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers 

to define a recreational boating facility; 

Whereas the United States is home to over 12,000 marinas 

that contribute substantially to their local communities 

by providing safe, reliable gateways to boating for members of their communities and their guests; 

Whereas marinas help preserve their environments by protecting the surrounding waterways, permitting not only 
2

•HRES 323 IH 

this generation but future generations to enjoy these precious natural resources; 

Whereas the Nation’s marinas provide their communities and 

visitors with a place where friends and families, united by 

a passion for the water, can come together for recreation, 

rest, and relaxation; 

Whereas more than 140,000 people are employed at marinas, 

which create jobs and generate tax revenues for their 

communities; 

Whereas the Marina Operators Association of America has 

proclaimed August 9, 2003, to be National Marina Day: 

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Marina Day; 

4 (2) recognizes America’s marinas for their 

5 many contributions to their local communities; and 

6 (3) urges all Americans to become more aware 

7 of the overall contributions marinas make to the 

8 well-being of the United States.

Æ
WELLINGTON HALL, LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                   EXHIBIT 11 - EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Years ended April 30
                                                2000                 1999                 1998
                                          ----------------     ----------------     ----------------
Basic

<S>                                             <C>                  <C>                  <C>
   Weighted Average Shares Outstanding             3,781,553            2,315,458            2,289,887
                                                ============         ============         ============

   Net Loss                                     $    (93,917)            (573,387)        $ (1,013,225)
                                                ============         ============         ============

   Per share amount                             $      (0.02)        $      (0.25)        $      (0.45)
                                                ============         ============         ============

   Diluted

   Weighted Average Shares Outstanding             3,781,553            2.315.458            2,289,887
                                                ============         ============         ============

   Diluted potential common shares
   outstanding during the years                            0                    0                    0

   Total Shares                                    3,781,553           2, 315,458            2,289,887
                                                ============         ============         ============

   Net Loss                                     $    (93,917)            (573,387)        $ (1,013,225)
                                                ============         ============         ============

   Per Share Amount                             $      (0.02)        $      (0.25)               (0.45)
                                                ============         ============         ============
</TABLE>

                                                                            -20-
#### In re: AFTERMARKET AUTOMOTIVE SHEET METAL PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Vehimax International, LLC v. Jui Li Enterprise Co., Ltd., et al., C.D. California, C.A. No. 2:09-6437 Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange Inc. v. Jui Li Enterprise Co., Ltd., et al., E.D. Wisconsin, C.A. No. 2:09-852.

MDL No. 2113.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Dec. 3, 2009.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., DAVID G. TRAGER, Judges of the Panel.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiff in the Central District of California action moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Central District of California or, in the alternative, the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs motion encompasses two actions pending, respectively, in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Defendants Gordon Auto Body Parts USA Corp. and Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., support the motion for centralization in the Central District of California, but oppose centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Defendant Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd., supports centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No other party responded to the motion; however, at oral argument, moving plaintiff represented that plaintiff in the Eastern District of Wisconsin also agreed with centralization.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In this docket encompassing only two actions, with two plaintiffs and six defendants, the proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any common questions of fact between these actions justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Instead, counsel in both actions can avail themselves of alternatives to transfer. See, *e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,*446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); *see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,*§ 20.14 (2004). Given the limited number of districts and parties involved in this litigation, cooperation among the counsel can minimize whatever possibilities there are of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, is denied.
Written Description of Oral Agreement - Pypo Beijing and Beijing Zhiyang East



 Exhibit 10.61 
 Written description of oral agreement between Beijing Pypo Technology Group Company 
 Limited and
Beijing Zhiyang East Investment Consulting Co., Ltd. 
 As of March 31, 2005, Beijing Pypo Technology Group Company Limited, or Pypo
Beijing, had a payable balance of approximately $1.2 million to Beijing Zhiyang East Investment Consulting Co., Ltd., or Zhiyang East, a company controlled by Mr. Kuo Zhang, for cash advances to it. In fiscal 2006, Pypo Beijing received
approximately $3.3 million of cash advances from Zhiyang East and repaid approximately $4.7 million of cash advances to Zhiyang East. In fiscal 2007, Pypo Beijing received approximately $1.1 million of cash advances from Zhiyang East and provided
approximately $2.6 million of cash advances to Zhiyang East. The advances were unsecured, interest-free obligations and were provided to meet the short-term working capital requirements of Pypo Beijing and Zhiyang East. In July 2007, Zhiyang East
repaid the outstanding balance of these cash advances of approximately $1.6 million.
EXHIBIT 23.1: CONSENT OF FARMER, FUQUA & HUFF, P.C.
---------------------------------------------------

We have issued our opinion dated April 14, 2004  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Greenbriar  Corporation on
Form  10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2003.  We hereby  consent  to the
incorporation  by reference  of said report in the  Registration  Statements  of
Greenbriar Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 33-50868 and 33-33985).


/s/ FARMER, FUQUA & HUFF, P.C.

Plano, Texas
April 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         875,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,591,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,887,515
<PP&E>                                      21,124,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,478,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,780,249
<BONDS>                                      8,010,506
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,687,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,478,228
<SALES>                                      7,407,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,407,604
<CGS>                                        7,040,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,040,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,314,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             366,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            561,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (751,074)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[No. 55727-1-I.

Division One.

December 12, 2005.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*John J. Santos, *Respondent,*and Joellen J. Santos, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-3-11058-6, Helen Halpert, J., entered January 18, 2005. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
exv10w40






Exhibit 10.40




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is entered into by and
between Trico Marine Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), and Joseph S.
Compofelice (“Executive”) as of December 9, 2008.



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have heretofore entered into that certain Employment
Agreement effective as of July 9, 2007, which was amended and restated effective as of July 23,
2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement in certain
respects;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual agreements set
forth herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree, effective as of the date first set forth
above, that the Employment Agreement shall be amended as hereafter provided:



     1. Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended by adding the following sentence
at the end thereof:




“For purposes of Section 2.3(i), “a material change in the geographic location at
which Executive must perform services” shall mean a requirement that Executive
relocate to a site more than fifty (50) miles from his present business address.”



     2. Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended by adding the following sentence
at the end thereof:




“Base Salary. During the period of this Agreement, Executive shall receive a
minimum annual base salary of $600,000. Executive’s annual base salary shall be reviewed by
the Board of Directors (or a committee thereof) on an annual basis, and, in the sole
discretion of the Board of Directors (or such committee), such annual base salary may be
increased, but not decreased (except for a decrease that is consistent with reductions taken
generally by other executives of Company), effective as of any date determined by the Board
of Directors. Executive’s annual base salary shall be paid in equal installments in
accordance with Company’s standard policy regarding payment of compensation to executives
but no less frequently than monthly.”



     3. Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement
shall remain in effect and binding on each party. Nothing herein shall be deemed to entitle either
party to a consent to, or a waiver, amendment, modification or other change of, any of the other
terms, conditions, obligations, or agreements contained in the Agreement. Neither this First
Amendment nor any provision hereof may be waived, amended or modified except by a written amendment
signed by both parties.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this First Amendment as of
the date first set forth above.



	 	 	 
	“EXECUTIVE”

	 	“COMPANY”
	 

	 	TRICO MARINE SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 
	 

Joseph S. Compofelice Name:

	 	 By:
	 

	 	 

	 

	 	Name:
	 

	 	 

	 

	 	Title:
	 

	 	 








-2-
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Mike Green d/b/a Residential Inspections, 

and Craig Cunningham, Appellant

No. 06-18-00022-CV v.

Southern County Mutual Insurance 

Company, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of 

Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 15-2067-

B). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the joint motion of the parties to 

dismiss the appeal by agreement should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED JULY 3, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00053-CR

Rodolfo Alvarez

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-01-29831-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered 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.

April 25, 2019
IV 

★

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 324

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2003

Ms. PELOSI submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and 

Means on July 18, 2003, for the consideration of the bill 

H.R. 1776, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 

Means offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute; 

Whereas during the reading of that amendment the chairman 

of the Ways and Means Committee directed majority 

staff of the committee to ask the United States Capitol 

Police to remove minority-party members of the committee from a room of the committee during the meeting, 

causing the United States Capitol Police thereupon to 

confront the minority-party members of the committee; 

and 

Whereas pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense 

with the reading of that amendment the chairman delib-
2

HRES 324 LTH1S 

erately and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate 

and timely objection by a member of the committee: Now, 

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives dis2 approves of the manner in which Representative Thomas 

3 conducted the markup of legislation in the Committee on 

4 Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, and finds that the 

5 bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered re6 ported to the House.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,916,299
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,317,017
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,486,127
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    290,056,925
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,870,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             328,661,073
<DEPOSITS>                                 195,394,972
<SHORT-TERM>                                42,337,805
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,104,371
<LONG-TERM>                                 63,115,023
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    999,988
<COMMON>                                     2,618,384
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,090,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             328,661,073
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,309,260
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              194,387
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               211,509
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,715,156
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,129,744
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,619,566
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,095,590
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  204,931
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              10,791
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,402,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                994,523
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     994,523
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   636,037
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.931
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,771,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               185,294
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                982,905
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,978,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  338,454
<RECOVERIES>                                    25,523
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,870,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           342,474
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,527,526
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23





                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Willamette Industries, Inc.:

  We consent to  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration  Statements
No. 33-5847, No. 33-40504,   No. 33-59515,  and No. 333-54156  on  Form S-8  and
No.  333-32647 on Form S-3 of  Willamette  Industries,  Inc. of our report dated
February 8, 2001,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of  Willamette
Industries,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  as of December  31, 2000 and 1999,  and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year  period ended  December 31, 2000,  which
report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Willamette
Industries, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 28, 2001
Order entered February 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00120-CV

No. 05-19-00121-CV

No. 05-19-00122-CV

IN RE MATTHEW REESE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-00306-P, F13-00723-P, and F13-60347-P 

ORDER

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1869

WILLIAM N. PIZARRO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT; JOSELIN CABRERA; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; 

BETOR FOODS INC.; GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES INC.; SPARTA

INSURANCE; MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (6:12-cv-01440-JMC)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William N. Pizarro, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William N. Pizarro appeals the district court’s order 

transferring his civil action to the United States District 

Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court 

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Pizarro that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Pizarro has waived appellate review by failing to file 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED