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  IN ORTHOLOGIC  CORPORATION'S  REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>   U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,698,020
<SECURITIES>                                 1,248,270
<RECEIVABLES>                               48,037,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                19,536,927
<INVENTORY>                                 11,075,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,738,359
<PP&E>                                      23,514,591
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,975,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,239,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,234,054
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 14,794,002
<COMMON>                                        12,720
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,929,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,239,817
<SALES>                                      4,747,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,068,345
<CGS>                                        4,717,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,258,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                149,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                617,994
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (485,219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

AS PELEUS, A DELAWARE LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY

v.

ALSON ALSTON, UNITED STATES C/O 

US ATTORNEY

PETITION OF: ALSON ALSTON

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 17 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
     (AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Charles R. Eitel, as Chief Executive Officer of Simmons Bedding Company (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 to my knowledge:

            (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
      ended June 25, 2005 (the "Report"), being filed with the U.S. Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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: August 9, 2005                          /s/ Charles R. Eitel
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name: Charles R. Eitel
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simmons Bedding Company and will be retained by Simmons Bedding
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 5, 2008

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SUNNI ADKINS

 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Lewis County

Nos. 6708 & 6730 Jeffrey S. Bivins, Judge

No. M2007-01355-CCA-R3-CD - Filed July 3, 2008

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., concurring.

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. However, I would affirm the trial

court because of the defendant’s failure to include the guilty plea hearing transcript in the record and

the attendant presumption that the trial court’s determinations were correct. See State v. Oody, 823

S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (holding trial court’s ruling presumed correct in the absence

of an adequate record on appeal).

The 1989 Sentencing Act, as amended, requires a sentencing court to consider evidence

received at the trial. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b)(1). With a guilty plea involving a felony, the evidence

supporting the plea and finding of guilt is usually submitted by stipulation. This court has

considered the guilty plea hearing transcript to be vital to a de novo review and potential

resentencing by this court as required by law. See T.C.A. § 40-35-401. No matter how developed

a record may appear, we will never know the full extent unless the guilty plea transcript is included.

I do not believe this court is required to analyze an incomplete record to determine the merit of a

sentencing complaint.

As a matter of legal analysis, though, I must express my disagreement with this court’s

affirming application of enhancement factor (4), that the children were particularly vulnerable. In

State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tenn. 1993), in overturning the factor’s application to rape

victims, ages 4, 5, and 12, our supreme court stressed that the factor “relates more to the natural

physical and mental limitations of the victim than merely to the victim’s age.” The court cast being

particularly vulnerable in terms of “incapable of resisting, summoning help, or testifying against the

perpetrator.” Id. Photographs of the victims in the record in the present case indicate nothing

regarding particular vulnerability. The trial court made and the majority opinion makes assumptions

about what the victims would not or could not do unless they were older and stronger, but the

evidence is not in the record to find they were particularly vulnerable. 

____________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, PRESIDING JUDGE
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED

MARCH 30, 2011 BETWEEN MTR GAMING GROUP, INC.,

AND JOSEPH BILLHIMER

 

WHEREAS, Mountaineer Park, Inc. (the “Company”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MTR Gaming Group, Inc. (“MTR”),  MTR and Joseph Billhimer (the “Executive”) (collectively the “Parties”), entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) on or about March 30, 2011 securing the employment of Executive as President and General Manager of the Company and MTR’s Senior Vice President for Operations and Development;

 

WHEREAS, the Parties, in exchange for the consideration detailed below, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the Parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement as follows:

 

	
Section 1, EMPLOYER:
    	
 
    	
Employer will now be the parent Company, MTR   Gaming Group, Inc.; and
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Section 4, DUTIES:
    	
 
    	
Executive is being promoted/appointed to the   position of Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President; and
    


 

	
Section 5, COMPENSATION &   BENEFITS:
    	
 
    	
(a) Executive’s base   salary is being raised to $340,000.00; and
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
(b) Executive’s  Annual   Incentive Bonus Target is being raised from forty percent (40%) to fifty   percent (50%)
    


 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that other than the specific sections described above, all other Terms of the Agreement remain in force and are specifically incorporated by reference herein.

 

WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby affix their signature below, intending to be legally bound and specifically agreeing to the terms of this First Amendment this 2nd Day of December 2011.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Joseph Billhimer
    	
 
    	
/s/ Jeffrey J. Dahl
    
	
JOSEPH BILLHIMER
    	
 
    	
JEFFREY J. DAHL
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
AS, PRESIDENT AND C.E.O. OF MTR GAMING   GROUP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Dated: 2 December, 2011
    	
 
    	
Dated: 2 December, 2011
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 4, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. WILLIS YAZZIE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-2199 (D.C. Nos. 1:14-CV-00894-JB-CG & 1:10-CR-01761-JB-1) (D.N.M.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before GORSUCH , O’BRIEN , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges. After Willis Yazzie pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse and waived his right to appeal he filed a collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. Mr. Yazzie now asks us to grant him a certificate of appealability (COA) to contest the district court’s judgment. But we do not see how we can. We may issue a COA only if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). And that much we do not see, even construing Mr. Yazzie’s pro se filings as liberally as we might.

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.Mr. Yazzie contends that his counsel acted deficiently by failing to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements he made. But as the district court explained, Mr. Yazzie has not alleged any facts suggesting that counsel’s decision was anything other than a reasoned decision based on law and strategy. Indeed, the record shows that Mr. Yazzie had a chance to consult with a second attorney about the potential for a suppression motion and that attorney too concluded there was no legal basis for it. In this light, we see no way in which we might disagree with the district court’s assessment that Mr. Yazzie has failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice, prerequisites both to prove a Sixth Amendment violation. Separately, Mr. Yazzie contends that his counsel should not have allowed him to enter a plea agreement in which he waive d his right to appeal. But he supplies no factual allegations to support this claim other than repeating his allegation that counsel failed him by declining to file a motion to suppress. In this way and as the district court observed, this second claim folds back into the first and fails for the reasons already identified. The application for COA is denied and this appeal is dismissed. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

- 2 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2345

NORMAN E. LEHNHARDT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. R. STARKEY, in his individual capacity;

RICHARD MARSH, in his individual capacity; C.

R. MOBLEY, in his individual capacity; GAIL J.

ROBERSON, in her individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior

District Judge. (CA-94-453-2)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman E. Lehnhardt, Appellant Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, Charles

Edward Brookhart, Richard Farber, Thomas Vincent Linguanti, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

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

court. Lehnhardt v. Starkey, No. CA-94-453-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 27,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                          EXHIBIT 15.1


                Independent Accountants' Review Report


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
DataTRAK International, Inc.


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
of DataTRAK International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company")
(formerly Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc.) as of September 30,
1999, and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations
for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998
and 1999 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for
the nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998 and 1999. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of
interim financial information consists principally of applying
analytical review procedures to financial data, and making inquiries
of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is
substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed for the
full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications
that should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated
financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards, the consolidated balance sheet of DataTRAK
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity
and cash flows for the year then ended, not presented herein, and in
our report dated February 5, 1999, we expressed an unqualified opinion
on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from
which it has been derived.


                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
October 21, 1999
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime VARGAS-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-41016

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jaime Vargas-Vasquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-*Toares v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Managers  Avendra, LLC:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-191335) on Form S-8 of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2017, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Avendra, LLC as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, members’ deficit, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 27, 2016 annual report amendment no. 1 on Form 10‐K/A of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc.


(signed) KPMG LLP


McLean, Virginia  March 24, 2017
**Exhibit 32**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Steven C. Futrell, President and CEOof the Corporation, and Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of their knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, theconsolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation and itssubsidiary.       /s/ Steven C. Futrell Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)   /s/ Kendall W. Rieman Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)         Date: October 26, 2007   Date: October 26, 2007          * This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of
**Exhibit 15.1**

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form F-3 No. 333-206501 and No. 333-203205) of Ardmore Shipping Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of ourreport dated April 6, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ardmore Shipping Corporation included in thisAnnual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2015.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young

 

Dublin, Ireland

 

April 6, 2016
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill LynchTrust 2013-C10, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2013-C10

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of July 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

  

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA/2 for the period ending October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller
and  Principal  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
ss.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

1)   the Report complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2)   the  information  in  the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ Antonio Estrada
Antonio Estrada
Corporate Controller
and Principal Financial Officer
March 1, 2004




<PAGE>
#### Lacroix Fils *v.*Sarrazin.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

January, 1883.)

Public Teeatibs—Pleading.

The court takes judicial notice of the public treaties between the United States and foreign countries, and a citizen of such a foreign country, in bringing a bill against a citizen Of Louisiana, need not allege that there is such a treaty in force.

In Equity. On demurrer.

*R. King Cutler,*for complainants.

*Andreiv J. Murphy,*for defendant.

*

 Reported by Joseph P. Horn or, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.

Pabder, J.

This court takes judicial notice of the public treaties between the United States and foreign countries. Where a citizen of France has, in compliance with the trade-mark laws of the United States, duly registered a trade-mark, he need not, in bringing an action against a citizen of Louisiana for violation of his rights in such trade-mark, allege that there is in force a treaty between the United States and France affording privileges in France to citizens of the United States similar to those given by the trade-mark laws of the United States.

Let demurrer be overruled.