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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JULY 01, 2000 AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000105532
<NAME>                        WELLCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    U. S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-03-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                            73
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                      28
<INVENTORY>                                    5,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,991
<PP&E>                                         9,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                12,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,785
<BONDS>                                          701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       1,164
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  12,950
<SALES>                                       22,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              22,225
<CGS>                                         19,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 21,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  824
<INCOME-TAX>                                     113
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              711
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     711
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .61




</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.21


 


2009 Executive Incentive
Plan Targets


 


	
  Senior Manager

  	
   

  	
  2009
  Executive Incentive Plan Target

  as a Percent of 2009 Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Gary
  D. Blackford

  	
   

  	
  85

  	
  %

  
	
  Rex
  T. Clevenger

  	
   

  	
  75

  	
  %

  
	
  Timothy
  W. Kuck

  	
   

  	
  70

  	
  %

  
	
  Jeffrey
  L. Singer

  	
   

  	
  70

  	
  %

  
	
  Walter
  T. Chesley

  	
   

  	
  65

  	
  %

  
	
  Diana
  Vance-Bryan

  	
   

  	
  65

  	
  %

  
	
  David
  Lawson

  	
   

  	
  65

  	
  %

  
	
  William
  Heintze

  	
   

  	
  60

  	
  %

  



 


	
  Target Achievement*

  	
   

  	
  Bonus
  Multiplier

  	
   

  
	
  110%

  	
   

  	
  150

  	
  %

  
	
  105%

  	
   

  	
  125

  	
  %

  
	
  100%

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
  %

  
	
  99%

  	
   

  	
  95

  	
  %

  
	
  98%

  	
   

  	
  90

  	
  %

  
	
  97%

  	
   

  	
  85

  	
  %

  
	
  96%

  	
   

  	
  80

  	
  %

  
	
  95%

  	
   

  	
  75

  	
  %

  
	
  94%

  	
   

  	
  70

  	
  %

  
	
  93%

  	
   

  	
  65

  	
  %

  
	
  <93%

  	
   

  	
  Zero

  	
   

  



 






* The target is set by the compensation committee


 


Scale Methodology


 


Directionally, every 1% variance to Target has a 5 times multiplier,
with bookends at 110% and 93%, subject to the discretion of the compensation
committee
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation:

Under date of  January 30, 1998,  we reported on  the balance sheets  of
Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation (Company) as of December 31,  1997
and 1996,  and  the  related  statements  of  operations,  shareholders'
equity, and cash flows  for each of the  years in the three-year  period
ended December 31, 1997, which are included in the 1997 annual report to
shareholders.  These  financial statements  and our  report thereon  are
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form
10-K.  In  connection with our  audits of  the aforementioned  financial
statements, we also  audited the related  financial statement  schedule.
The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the  Company's
management.   Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on  this
financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion,  such financial statement  schedule, when considered  in
relation to the basic  financial statements taken  as a whole,  presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.


KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 30, 1998
<PAGE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:  January 7, 2008 | Signed:  /s/  Terry D. Schumacher           
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                       | Terry D. Schumacher,
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Coco N. Spencer, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 859]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a jury trial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled *1306substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Because defendant failed to renew her motion for a trial order of dismissal after she presented evidence, her contention concerning the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction of robbery in the second degree is not preserved for our review *(see People v Hines,*97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], *rearg denied*97 NY2d 678 [2001]). Nevertheless, we exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), and we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of robbery *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. A person is guilty of robbery “when, in the course of committing a larceny, he [or she] uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person” (Penal Law § 160.00). Thus, it is not possible for a person to commit a robbery without also committing a larceny *(see People v Williams,*41 AD3d 1252, 1253 [2007]). A person is guilty of larceny when, “with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself [or herself] or to a third person, he [or she] wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof’ (Penal Law § 155.05 [1]). By removing a pager from the victim’s pocket and breaking it, defendant engaged in conduct that “is clearly and unequivocally within the realm of criminal *mischief—not*larceny” *(People v Misevis,*138 Misc 2d 1097, 1099 [1988]). Furthermore, it is undisputed that defendant searched the victim and removed the pager with the sole intention of determining whether the victim possessed an audio transmitting device and was a “snitch.” It thus cannot be said that the threatened use of force by which she compelled the victim to submit to the search was “for the purpose of’ preventing or overcoming the victim’s resistance to a larceny or compelling the victim to engage in conduct that aided in the commission of a larceny (§ 160.00), the requisite “enumerated consequences” under the statute defining the term robbery *(People v Smith,*79 NY2d 309, 312 [1992]).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in her pro se supplemental brief and, to the extent that they are not rendered academic as a result of our decision herein, we conclude that they are without merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(c)

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
year ended December 29, 2002 of Wendy's International, Inc. (the "Issuer").

I, Kerrii B. Anderson, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that, to
the best of my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: March 28, 2003

                             /s/ Kerrii B. Anderson
                             ----------------------------------
                             Name: Kerrii B. Anderson

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Wendy's International, Inc. and will be retained by Wendy's
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Reyes MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50093.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2012.

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Ann Luotto Wolf, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Craig Wilke, Law Office of Craig Wilke, Fullerton, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Isaac Reyes Martinez appeals his conviction after jury trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) *678and 846, and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i).

We hold that the government violated Appellant’s Fifth Amendment right to be convicted solely on the evidence adduced at trial, under *United States v. Schuler,*818 F.2d 978, 981-82 (9th Cir.1987), by commenting in its closing argument on Appellant’s demeanor in the courtroom during witness Acosta-Ruiz’s testimony and identification of Appellant. Analyzing the record for harmless error pursuant to *Chapman v. California,*386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), we cannot conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. Weatherspoon,*410 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir.2005). Therefore we reverse Appellant’s conviction and remand the case to the district court for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN T. ENSIGN ; LAURA A. ENSIGN,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.
U.S. BANK, as Trustee,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 35198

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 01609

- HZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtors Stephen T. Ensign and Laura A. Ensign appeal pro se

from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order striking

their amended complaint and dismissing their adversary proceeding. We have

jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) . We re view de novo the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35198

decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standard s of

review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co. , 677 F.3d 869,

879 (9th Cir. 2012) . We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by striking the Ensigns’ amended

complaint and dismiss ing the adversary proceeding sua sponte because the

amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint previously

dismissed by the court. See 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) ( authorizing bankruptcy courts to

take sua sponte action or make any determination “ necessary or appropriate to

enforce or implement court orders ”)

. Contrary to the Ensigns’ contentions, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction

to enter a final order. See Ex ec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison ( In re Bellingham

Ins. Agency, Inc.) , 702 F.3d 553, 568

- 69 (9th Cir. 2012) ( discussing Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 7008 and explaining that a litigant’s actions may suffice to establish consent;
“Congress intended to allow parties to consent by their actions to the authority of

bankruptcy courts to enter dispositive orders on any bankruptcy

- related claim.” )

. We reject as unsupported by the record the Ensigns ’ contention that the

bankruptcy court gave them vague instructions as to amending their complaint

. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Acosta

- Huerta v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993)
(issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).3 17

- 35198

The Ensigns ’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their opening and reply

briefs, and U.S. Bank’s mo tion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18)
, are
denied as unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 265 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 11, 2003.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs 
for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each 
such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendment are 
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7002

WILLIAM LAWRENCE SATTERWHITE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-860-3) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lawrence Satterwhite, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000). 2 PER CURIAM: William Lawrence Satterwhite, Jr., appeals the magistratejudge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Satterwhite v. United States , No. CA-99-860- 3 (E.D. Va. July 10, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 22, 2012

s1015

Order 

October 22, 2012

145185

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145185

COA: 301811

Ingham CC: 10-000560-FC

ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN BOWERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2012 and 

May 3, 2012 judgments of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because 

we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Modified Employment Contract


This Employment Contract ("Employment Contract") between Westland Development
Co., Inc. (hereinafter called "Westland" or "Employer") and Linda Blair
(hereinafter called "Blair" or "Employee") is as follows:

1. Westland hereby agrees to employ Blair as Vice President for a period of six
(6) years from the date of execution of this document on the following terms and
conditions.

2. The Salary paid to Blair shall be not less than $62,296 per year plus all
employee benefits, which said amount may be increased but may not be decreased,
as determined by Westland's Board of Directors.

3. The term of the contract will automatically extend for two additional periods
of three (3) years at the end of the initial six (6) year term under the same
terms and conditions.

4. The Employee may terminate this Employment Contract upon the giving of at
least 15 days notice in writing. Westland may terminate this Employment Contract
upon the giving of at least 60 days notice in writing.    If Westland terminates
the contract, Westland agrees to pay to Employee as consideration and
compensation six (6) year's salary, plus the cash value of all other employment
benefits on the date of termination.

5. If any of the provisions of this Employment Contract is held to be invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable, that determination will not affect the enforceability
of any other provisions of this Employment Contract, and the remaining
provisions of the Employment Contract will be valid and enforceable according to
their terms.


Dated April 22, 2005
Westland Development Co., Inc.                             Employee


By:

Barbara Page, President                                  Linda Blair


Sosimo Padilla, Chairman of the Board
Exhibit 32.2



OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel M. Walker, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 10, 2005



/s/ DANIEL M. WALKERDaniel M. WalkerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




25
No. 1011.

#### Hudock, Executor, *v.*Freeman, Secretary of Banking.

April 29, 1946.

*Robert T. McCracken, George G. Chandler*and *Frank L. Finóla*for petitioner.

*Leo W. White*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied.