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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CSA Income
Fund IV Limited Partnership's Statement of Financial Position as of December
31, 1997 and Statement of Operations for the twelve months then ended and is
qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,746,766
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  864,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      59,318,040
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,193,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,736,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,570,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,736,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,487,537
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,360,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               286,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,123,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,716,253
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,716,253
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,716,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.31
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant maintains an unclassified Statement of Financial Position.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.1


                               CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                          OF
                             CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                          OF
                           COMMUNITY FIRST BANKSHARES, INC.


The undersigned, Mark A. Anderson, Executive Vice President of Community 
First Bankshares, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), subject to 
the provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does 
hereby certify that the following resolutions were duly adopted by the Board 
of Directors of the Company on February 3, 1998, and duly approved by the 
shareholders of the Company on April 28, 1998, in accordance with Section 242 
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and that said 
resolutions are now in full force and effect:

     RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Article IV of the Company's 
  Restated and Amended  Certificate of Incorporation be, and it hereby is, 
  replaced with the following:

     "The total number of shares of stock which the corporation shall have 
  authority to issue is Eighty-Two Million (82,000,000) shares, divided 
  into Eighty Million (80,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value 
  per share ("Common Stock"), and Two Million (2,000,000) shares of 
  Preferred Stock, $.01 par value per share ("Preferred Stock").

     RESOLVED FURTHER, that the officers of the Company be, and they hereby 
  are, authorized and directed to execute such documents and certificates 
  and take such other action as may be necessary or appropriate to give 
  effect to the foregoing resolution.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on this 4th day of May, 1998.

                                      /s/ Mark A. Anderson
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Mark A. Anderson, Executive Vice President


STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA    )
                         ) ss.
COUNTY OF CASS           )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4th day of May, 
1998, by Mark A. Anderson, Executive Vice President of Community First 
Bankshares, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, on behalf of the Corporation.

                                    /s/ Judy M. Smith
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Notary Public
                                   My Commission:   [Notary stamp]     
                                                 ----------------------
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certificate of Principal Executive Officer

pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of CNET Networks, Inc.
(CNET Networks) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neil M. Ashe, Chief Executive Officer and Director of
CNET Networks, Inc., 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 Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: July 31, 2007



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/ Neil M. Ashe                    
|Neil M. Ashe                        
|Director and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and
will be retained by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 2, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40212 Summary Calendar

JAY GRIFFITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JONATHAN PERKINS, in his official capacity; CITY OF SANGER TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-292

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jay Griffith was issued a speeding ticket by Jonathan Perkins, a police officer for the City of Sanger, Texas (the City). Griffith filed suit against Perkins and the City alleging that Perkins violated his constitutional rights by acting as a police officer without having filed the necessary oath of office with the Secretary of State of Texas. The district court dismissed the claims against Perkins, granted summary judgment inNo. 04-40212 -2- favor of the City, and awarded the City attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Griffith contests that award. The district court granted summary judgment against Griffith because he failed to present a prima facie case. Griffith’s appeal of the summary judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Griffith v. Perkins , No. 03-41040 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2003) (unpublished) The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to the City because Griffith failed to present a prima facie case of liability by the City. See Myers v. City of West Monroe , 211 F.3d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 2000). Griffith argues that the district court made an evidentiary error in awarding attorney’s fees because the fee information was not submitted by a valid affidavit. This claim is raised for the first time on appeal and will not be considered. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). The ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[Farm Credit Administration]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATIONLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpires**OFFICE OF THE BOARD**McLean, VAChairmanMarsha P. Martin (D)EXPASIII6 years10/13/2000McLean, VAMemberDoyle L. Cook (D)EXPASIV4 years05/21/1998McLean, VAMember Vacant (R)EXPASIV..................McLean, VASecretaryFloyd J. FithianOTSC............................McLean, VASpecial Assistant to the ChairmanMaxine T. ChildersOTSC............................McLean, VASpecial Assistant to the MemberLaurelie M. WallaceOTSC............................**OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL & PUBLIC 
              AFFAIRS**McLean, VADirector VacantOTSC............................McLean, VACongressional And Public Affairs SpecialistClaire D. RuskOTSC............................McLean, VAPublic And Congressional Affairs SpecialistRichard JosephOTSC............................
```
Summary of Salaries for named Executive Officers


 Exhibit 10.12 
 SUMMARY OF SALARIES FOR 
 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 

(as of February 15, 2011) 
 The following summarizes the fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 salaries of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the other officers who were named in the Summary Compensation Table in the proxy
statement for the Company’s last Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and Jeffrey W. Burris, who will be included in the Summary Compensation Table in the proxy statement for the Company’s upcoming Annual Meeting of Stockholders (collectively,
the “Named Executive Officers”). 
 The executive officers of the Company serve at the discretion of the Board of
Directors. The Compensation Committee of the Board reviews and determines the salaries that are paid to the Company’s executive officers, including the Named Executive Officers. 

On February 15, 2011, the Compensation Committee increased the salaries of the Named Executive Officers, retroactive to
January 1, 2011. The following chart provides the fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 salaries for the Named Executive Officers. 
  

									
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	Fiscal 2010
Salary	 	  	Fiscal 2011
Salary	 
	 Steven G. Anderson
Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	619,229	  	  	$	637,806	  
	 D. Ashley Lee
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	350,897	  	  	$	361,424	  
	 Gerald B. Seery
Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
	  	$	275,000	  	  	$	290,000	  
	 Albert E. Heacox, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	  	$	281,589	  	  	$	290,037	  
	 David M. Fronk
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance
	  	$	254,400	  	  	$	269,400	  
	 Jeffrey W. Burris
Vice President and General Counsel
	  	$	275,000	  	  	$	290,000
WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE RIGHTS

NINETEENTH AMENDMENT

SECTIONS 1 AND 2. The right of the citizens of the United States

to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or

by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE

The Nineteenth Amendment was adopted after a long campaign by its advocates, who had largely despaired of attaining their

goal through modification of individual state laws. Agitation in behalf of women’s suffrage was recorded as early as the Jackson Administration, but the initial results were meager. Beginning in 1838,

Kentucky authorized women to vote in school elections and its action was later copied by a number of other states. Kansas in 1887

granted women unlimited rights to vote in municipal elections. Not

until 1869, however, when the Wyoming Territory accorded women

suffrage rights on an equal basis with men and continued the practice following admission to statehood, did these advocates register

a notable victory. Progress continued to be discouraging, only ten

additional states having joined Wyoming by 1914, and, judicial efforts having failed.1 A vigorous campaign brought congressional passage of a proposed Amendment in 1919 and the necessary state ratifications in 1920.2

Following the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fifteenth

Amendment, the state courts that passed on the effect of the Amendment ruled that it did not confer upon women the right to vote,

but only the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of

their sex in the setting of voting qualifications,3 a formalistic distinction to be sure, but one that has restrained the possible applications of the Amendment. In only one case has the Supreme Court

itself dealt with the Amendment’s effect, holding that a Georgia poll

1 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875), a challenge under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

2 E. FLEXNER, CENTURY OF STRUGGLE: THE WOMAN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED

STATES (1959).

3 State v. Mittle, 120 S.C. 526 (1922), writ of error dismissed, 260 U.S. 705 (1922);

Graves v. Eubank, 205 Ala. 174 (1921); In re Cavelier, 287 N.Y.S. 739 (1936).

2277
tax statute that exempted from payment women who did not register to vote did not discriminate in any manner against the right of

men to vote, although it did note that the Amendment “applies to

men and women alike and by its own force supersedes inconsistent

measures, whether federal or State.” 4

4 Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937).

2278 AMENDMENT 19—WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE RIGHTS
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 Quarterly Report of Braintech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six month period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick Weidinger the Principal Executive 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 to my knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/  Frederick Weidinger




Frederick Weidinger




Principal Executive Officer




Dated: August 12, 2009
Summary of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Board of Directors Compensation



 Exhibit 10.29 
 ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. 
 BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

 EFFECTIVE FOR 2011 FISCAL YEAR 
 Cash Compensation 
 Non-employee members of the Board of Directors are entitled to
receive cash fees as follows: 
  

					
	 Cash Compensation
	  	Amount	 
	 Annual Board Retainer
	  	$	60,000	  
	 Annual Committee Chairman Retainer
	  	 	30,000	  
	 Annual Audit Committee Member Retainer
	  	 	15,000	  
	 Annual Compensation Committee Chairman Retainer
	  	 	15,000	  
	 Annual Committee Chairman Retainer (All Other Committees)
	  	 	6,000	  
	 Annual Committee Member Retainer (All Other Committees)
	  	 	5,000	  
	 Board Per Meeting Fees
	  	 	1,200	  
	 Committee Per Meeting Fees (All Committees)
	  	 	1,200	  

 Equity Compensation

 At the discretion of the Board, each non-employee director is eligible to receive an annual grant of equity awards with an aggregate
value on the date of grant equal to $120,000. Commencing in 2011, the entire amount of the award is payable in restricted stock units which fully vest on the date of grant. Shares of our common stock underlying the restricted stock units are
deliverable one year after the grant date independent of whether the director holding the restricted stock units continues to serve as a Board member as of the share delivery date. 
 Cruise Benefits 
 The Company provides Board members with certain cruise benefits in
accordance with the Company’s Board Member Cruise Policy.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001015551
<NAME>                        Sprint Spectrum L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         41,400
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  273,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   20,900
<INVENTORY>                                    120,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               628,100
<PP&E>                                         4,948,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 921,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,033,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,231,300
<BONDS>                                        4,574,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (830,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,033,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               440,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  550,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (508,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (508,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (32,500)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (540,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Michael J. Keene v. William F. Pier et al.

June 7, 1983

Case No. (Chancery) 32899

By JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF

For decision is the motion to dismiss the Bill of Complaint filed herein on the ground that as a matter of law neither Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. I have carefully considered the able arguments presented and the exceptionally well prepared memorandum submitted and hasten to advise you of my conclusion.

The Plaintiff bases his contention of jurisdiction on Section 8.01-328.1, *Code of*Virginia, particularly paragraph (1), "Transacting any business in this Commonwealth." He contends that by mailing a brochure into Virginia and selling its products to Virginia residents, combined with the specific solicitation in the brochure of April, 1980, and the subsequent meeting between Plaintiff and Sterling Martel in Arlington, the Defendants have transacted business in this Commonwealth.

The defendants deny that either conducted any business in Virginia out of which Plaintiff’s cause of action arose. They concede that as a mail catalog business Defendant S. I. Equipment, Ltd., had made previous sales to Virginia residents. They deny maintaining any offices or property in this Commonwealth or having any agents in Virginia. They assert *100urgently that nowhere in the Bill of Complaint does the Plaintiff allege that he contracted with either Defendant for the investment outlined in the April, 1980, brochure. In short, they contend that this transaction was between Plaintiff and Martel and did not involve them.

It seems to me that the critical issue presented is whether the language of the statement in the April, 1980, brochure represents an "offer to sell" within the meaning of that phrase in section 13.1-507. I do not believe that it does. The statement in the brochure contained no definite offer which, upon acceptance, could ripen into a binding contract. It was a solicitation and an indication of a willingness to provide additional information.

Section 8.01-328.1 confers jurisdiction over a Defendant who "acts directly" or "by an agent." The present Defendants acted directly only in placing the statement in the April, 1980, brochure. Thereafter there was the referral of the Plaintiff to Sterling Martel with whom the transaction was consummated. The question remains, however, as to whether the Defendants acted "by an agent." Nowhere in the Bill of Complaint is it alleged that Sterling Martel was the agent or employee of either Defendant.

While differing factually, the Illinois decision of *Koplin*v. *Saul Lerner Co., Inc.,*210 N.E.2d 763, is apropos to a number of the issues presented in the present action. The other decisions cited have been examined and are distinguishable on the facts.

For these reasons the motion to dismiss is granted.