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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                             119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                        56
<INVENTORY>                                      2,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,248
<PP&E>                                          11,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,083
<BONDS>                                          3,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,487
<SALES>                                         21,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,322
<CGS>                                           17,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    43
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    300
<INCOME-TAX>                                        65
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10600 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOMMY HAYNES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CR-63-4-C

- - - - - - - - - -

February 14, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy Haynes appeals his conviction and sentence after

pleading guilty to a single count of possession with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of amphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 2;

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). He argues that the district

court erred during the guilty-plea hearing because it (1) failed

to inform him of the effect of supervised release; (2) failed to

inform him that it could depart from the sentencing guidelines;

and (3) failed to inquire whether anyone besides the Government

coerced him into pleading guilty. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
No. 00-10600

-2-

As part of a written agreement, Haynes waived his right to

appeal the conviction, judgment, or sentence. He reserved the

right to appeal (1) any punishment imposed in excess of the

statutory maximum; (2) any punishment to the extent it

constitutes an upward departure from the guideline range deemed

most applicable by the sentencing court, and an improper

computation of the applicable guideline level; and (3) any claim

based on a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 

Haynes has waived his right to challenge any Rule 11

omissions on appeal. See United States v. Packer, 70 F.3d 357,

359 (5th Cir. 1995)(applying waiver when defendant argued that

the court failed to advise him of an essential element of the

offense). He does not challenge the validity of the waiver

provision in his plea agreement. See United States v. Robinson,

187 F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Haynes’

appeal is DISMISSED.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 23

- 00271

- CV

MAURO E. GARZA AND EVERETT HOLDINGS, LLC , A PPELLANT S V. JULIA PEREZ , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 57th District Court Bexar County, Texas 1 Trial Court No
. 2023

- CI

- 08559 , Honorable Tina Torres , Presiding



### August 31 , 2023 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Mauro E. Garza and Everett Holdings, LLC , appeal from the trial court’s Order Denying Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss (TCPA) . Appellee, Julia Perez, has filed a cross

- notice of appeal. We remand the appeal for further proceedings. The appellate record was originally due on July 10, 2023

. The clerk ’ s record ha s been filed

. However, t he court reporter has not filed the reporter ’ s record or requested

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

an extension of time to file the record to date

. By letter of August 10, 2023 , we notified the reporter that the record was overdue and directed her to advise th e C ourt of the status of th e record by August 21

. We have received no communication from the reporter since. Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 35.3(c) ( “ The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. ” ); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring appellate courts to “ make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights ” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand, the trial court shall determine the following: ( 1 ) what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter ’ s record; ( 2 ) why the reporter has not completed the necessary tasks; ( 3 ) what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those tasks; and (4) whether the reporter can complete the tasks within the time the trial court finds reasonable. Should the trial court determine that the reporter will require more than thirty days to complete, certify, and fi le the reporter ’ s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter to do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a supplemental cle rk ’ s record and cause that record to be filed with this C ourt by October
2 , 2023

.3

Should the reporter file the record on or before September 14 , 202 3 , s he is directed to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall not be required to take any further action. All appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the Court. It is so ordered. Per Curiam
Exhibit 10.17


 


Marten Transport, Ltd.


 


2009 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary


 


The Board of Directors of Marten Transport, Ltd.
approved the following fee schedule for non-employee directors for fiscal year
2009:


 


	
  Annual Board retainer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  20,000

  	
   

  
	
  Lead Director

  	
   

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Audit Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  7,500

  	
   

  
	
  Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  



 


The company generally pays non-employee directors a
fee of $1,000 for each Board meeting attended, $500 for each committee meeting
attended, and reimburses them for out-of-pocket expenses of attending meetings.


 


Pursuant to the non-employee director option program
adopted on March 1, 2006, which is similar to the program that was
suspended in 2004, each non-employee director will also receive an automatic
grant of an option to purchase 2,500 shares of common stock annually upon
re-election to the Board by the stockholders. 
These options will be issued at a per share exercise price equal to the
fair market value of one share of common stock on the grant date and expire ten
years from the grant date.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1037

KATHY I. RILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BEVERAGE AIR, a division of Specialty

Equipment Manufacturing Company,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-00-2267-8-24)

Submitted: June 18, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven M. Krause, LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. KRAUSE, P.A., Anderson,

South Carolina; Mary C. McCormac, Clemson, South Carolina, for

Appellant. S. Clay Keim, Jeffrey A. Lehrer, EDWARDS, BALLARD,

BISHOP, CLARK, STURM & KEIM, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kathy Riley appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment and dismissing her state privacy act and Family

and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-2654 (West

1999). We have reviewed the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Riley v. Beverage Air, No. CA-00-2267-8-24 (D.S.C.

Nov. 28, 2001). 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
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Jeffrey A. Green, Chief Executive Officer, DATATRAK International, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DATATRAK International, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: August 12, 2005         /s/ Jeffrey A. Green         Jeffrey A. Green,
Amendment to Pricing Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 



 
 December 15, 2011 
 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated 
 Attn: Mr. James E. Harris 

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

4100 Coca-Cola Plaza 
 Charlotte, NC 28211

  

	Re:	Amendment No. 2 to Incidence Pricing Agreement 

 This letter agreement confirms our agreement to amend the Incidence Pricing Agreement between Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated and The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola North America Division, dated as of
March 16, 2009 (the “Pricing Agreement”). 
 Pursuant to this letter agreement, the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Pricing
Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence: 
 “The Program shall be for a minimum of five years
beginning on January 1, 2009, and shall end on December 31, 2013, unless terminated earlier by either party as permitted herein or renewed or extended by mutual written agreement of the parties (the “Term”).” 

If this letter accurately sets forth our understanding and agreement, please sign below and return one copy to the undersigned for our files. This
Amendment No. 2 to the Pricing Agreement shall be effective as of the date agreed to by Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Brian Hannafey
	 Brian Hannafey
 Vice
President, Franchise Relations Finance
 Coca-Cola North America


 AGREED this 20th day of December, 2011: 
 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated 
  

					
	By:  	 	/s/ James E. Harris


					
		
	Printed Name:	 	James E. Harris
		
	Title:	 	CFO

 Classified - Highly Restricted
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                 Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)



Six Months Ended June 30                                                              2003             2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------

Numerator:
<S>                                                                            <C>              <C>
   Net Loss                                                                    $  (653,058)     $  (2,244,941)


Denominator:
   Weighted average common shares                                                1,685,555          1,716,815


Earnings Per Share:
   Net Loss                                                                        $ (0.39)           $ (1.31)






Three Months Ended June 30                                                            2003             2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------

Numerator:
   Net Loss                                                                    $  (319,740)     $  (1,847,998)


Denominator:
   Weighted average common shares                                                1,685,228          1,716,815


Earnings Per Share:
   Net Loss                                                                        $ (0.19)           $ (1.08)
</TABLE>
#### In re: UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Debtors. Robert W. Curtis and Bob Curtis Enterprises, Inc. (f/k/a RWC Consulting, Inc.), Appellants, v. Union Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 05-1589.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2005.

Decided Nov. 28, 2005.

David D. Farrell, Brian W. Hockett, Thompson *&*Coburn, St. Louis, MO, Lynn Hamilton Butler, Steve Lemmon, Brown & McCarroll, Austin, TX, for Appellants.

John Michael Clear, Gregory D. Willard, Cullen K. Kuhn, Bryan *&*Cave, St. Louis, MO, Erie R. Fencl, Chesterfield, MO, for Appellees.

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Robert W. Curtis (“Curtis”) is the former president and sole shareholder of Appellant Bob Curtis Enterprises, Inc. (f/k/a RWC Consulting Group, Inc. (“RWC Inc.”)). In September 2000, Curtis sold the assets of RWC Inc. to Outsourcing Solutions, Inc. (“OSI”), which later became one of the debtors in the jointly administered Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Union Financial Services, Inc., *et al.*(the “Debtors”). Pursuant to the sale, OSI issued a Subordinated Promissory Note dated September 29, 2000 (the “Seller Note”) made payable to RWC Inc. in the principal amount of $5 million with a maturity date of September 29, 2003.

The Debtors filed for bankruptcy relief on May 12, 2003. Curtis filed several proofs of claim in the cases, asserting prepetition claim amounts arising from the Seller Note. The joint plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) confirmed in the cases provided that claims arising under the Seller Note were classed as general unsecured claims for purposes of priority at distribution. The Appellants received notice of the Plan and did not object to its terms. After the confirmation order became final, the Debtors objected to several of Curtis’s proofs of claim and Curtis, in response, filed a motion for payment of an administrative expense claim for essentially the same amount as set forth in his proofs of claim. He posited that his claim had become a postpetition administrative expense claim because it was actually part of an integrated execu-tory contract that was assumed by the Debtors pursuant to the Plan. Thus, Curtis argued, he was entitled to full payment under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a). 11 U.S.C. § 507(a). The bankruptcy court1 applied applicable Missouri law *941and concluded that the Seller Note was not part of an integrated contract. The bankruptcy court further determined that: (1) the Seller Note standing alone was not executory; and (2) pursuant to the Seller Note, Curtis held an allowed general unsecured claim that was fully subordinated to the payment in full of all other claims. The Appellants appealed to the district court,2 which affirmed.

Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the arguments on appeal, we find no error in the bankruptcy court’s disposition of this matter, and we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Barry S, Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District' of Missouri.

2

. The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

FedQuest Solutions

, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62824

)

Under Contract No. W912HP

- 17

- F

- 6001 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Seth A. Robbins, Esq.

Robbins Law Group, PLLC

Arlington, VA

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appellant notified the Board by letter dated March 16, 2021, that the Contracting

Officer had rescinded the contracting officer’s final decision (COFD) . Absent bad faith,

rescission of the COFD leaves no claims for us to adjudicate, mooting the appeal.

Combat Support Assocs. , ASBCA No. 58945, 16

- 1 BCA ¶ 36

, 288 at 176,974.

By Order dated March 19, 2021, the Board informed the parties that it intended to

dismiss this appeal unless either party objected within 14 days of that Order. The Board

received no objection from either party.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

Dated: April 13 , 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62824

, Appeal of FedQuest

Solutions Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 13, 2021 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terra Income Fund 6, Inc. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2016 , as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce D. Batkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory M. Pinkus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:


1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 21, 2016


/s/ Bruce D. BatkinBruce D. BatkinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Gregory M. PinkusGregory M. PinkusChief Financial Officer,Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Geron Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | (i)  |  | the accompanying
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     
| | (ii) |  | the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.                                                                                                                          

Dated: October 30, 2009

|/s/ DAVID L. GREENWOOD                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------
|David L.
      Greenwood                                  
|Executive Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Geron Corporation and
will be retained by Geron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---