alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information derived from Tysons
     Financial Corporation's audited financial statements for the twelve months
     ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
     such financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,814,233
<SECURITIES>                                    14,867,432
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             499,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,836,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                            375,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         8,265,085
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,836,710
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,556,092
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,813,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   354,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   172,193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,227,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    987,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (74,018)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,061,824
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          1.23 <<<<PLEASE VERIFY - ERROR>>>>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.23



</TABLE>
----

|   | a) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m(a) or      78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  February 17,      2009 | /s/ Michael A. Trinidad  |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                    | Michael      A. Trinidad |

----
1995 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-4-1995

Industry Network v Armstrong

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 94-5132

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Industry Network v Armstrong" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 109.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/109
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 Nos. 94-5132 and 94-5164 

 

THE INDUSTRY NETWORK SYSTEM, INC. 

V. 

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. 

STEVEN M. KRAMER, 

 Appellant 

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 84-03837) 

 

Argued December 1, 1994 

Before: HUTCHINSON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

 and SEITZ, Senior Circuit Judge 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

 

 It is hereby ordered that the Court's Opinion be 

corrected as follows: 

 On page 4, line 5 of the slip opinion, after the 

numeral 3 for the footnote, delete the rest of the paragraph to 

the Roman numeral I. 

 On page 8, the next to last line, put a period "." 

after "misplaced," and delete the rest of the sentence. 

 On page 9, line 1, delete "as in Pennsylvania." 

 BY THE COURT 

 /S/ Richard L. Nygaard
 Circuit Judge 

Dated: May 4, 1995
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      19,300,515
<SECURITIES>                                13,117,217
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,163,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,765,785
<PP&E>                                       3,311,184
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,320,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,878,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,187,654
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,107
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,519,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,878,515
<SALES>                                     23,185,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,185,833
<CGS>                                        6,397,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,762,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,320,064
<INCOME-TAX>                                   183,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,137,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
RATIFICATION

ARTICLE VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be

sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the

States so ratifying the Same.

IN GENERAL

In Owings v. Speed 1 the question at issue was whether the Constitution operated upon an act of Virginia passed in 1788. The Court

held it did not, stating in part:

“The Conventions of nine States having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution

in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention, and

appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the

day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, ‘for commencing

proceedings under the Constitution.’ ”

“Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same

time. The New Government did not commence until the old Government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State; for these

ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested

to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the

new Government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to

act as a Government until it dissolved on the 1st of November, by

the successive disappearance of its Members. It existed potentially

until the 2d of March, the day proceeding that on which the Members of the new Congress were directed to assemble.”

“The resolution of the Convention might originally have suggested a doubt, whether the government could be in operation for

every purpose before the choice of a President; but this doubt has

been long solved, and were it otherwise, its discussion would be useless, since it is apparent that its operation did not commence before the first Wednesday in March 1789 . . . .”

1 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 420, 422–23 (1820).

1045
Ian P Cleminson bonus payment letter dated December 1, 2010



 Exhibit 10.13 

 
 Private & Confidential 

 
 Mr I Cleminson 

[personal address information] 
  

1st December 2010 
  

Dear Ian 
  
 On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am delighted to confirm that the Board have decided to award you a special one off bonus to show their appreciation of what has been accomplished and the loyalty you
have shown to the Company over what has been an extended and testing period in the Company’s history. The Board anticipates your continued loyalty and endeavour over the coming period as we grow the business both geographically and by
acquisition. 
  
 The main elements of this bonus are as follows:-

  

	1.	You will receive a one off bonus payment of $250,000. This will be paid in January 2011 using the relevant exchange rate at the time. 


 

	2.	You are required to use 1/3 of this bonus, after tax, to purchase Innospec stock in the open market. This should be done in the first stock trading window after you
receive this payment. Please make sure you let Nicola Earl in Ellesmere Port have the details of your stock purchase so the necessary filings can be completed. 


 

	3.	You will be required to hold the stock purchased in point 2 above for a minimum of 1 year. 

  

	4.	If you decide to end your employment with Innospec of your own accord, within two years of receiving this bonus, the Company reserves the right to require you to repay
some or all of this bonus payment. Any such repayment will be at the absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board and you will be notified of their decision in writing. 


 
 Please sign the attached copy of this letter and return to Cathy Hessner in
Ellesmere Port, to confirm your acceptance of the above terms. 
  
 On
behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution and loyalty to our company to date and to wish you continued success in the future as we focus on driving the business forward. 

 
 Kind regards 

	
	 /s/    BOB
BEW        


	 Bob Bew

	 Chairman
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kyris BLACK, Appellant.

No. 08-1875.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2008.

Filed: April 29, 2008.

Appellant represented himself.

Jennifer J. Roy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before: WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kyris Black appeals the district court’s1 order granting a 10-month reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment- 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which reduced the base offense levels in USSG § 2Dl.l(c) based on the quantity of cocaine base (crack).

Mr. Black pleaded guilty to possessing with the intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Black faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months. *See*§ 841(b)(1)(B). He was originally sentenced to 70 months in prison based on an offense level of 27 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. Because Mr. Black’s original sentencing range was based in part on the quantity of drugs under USSG § 2D 1.1(c), he was eligible for a reduction of his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). The district court appointed counsel to represent Black and held a hearing on the motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

In determining the amended guidelines range, the district court properly set the bottom of the amended guidelines range at 60 months, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, *see*USSG § 5G1.1(c)(2), and sentenced Black to a modified sentence of 60 months in prison. The district court lacked the authority to reduce Black’s sentence any further, even after *Kimbrough,*which does not authorize district courts to sentence below the Congres-*893sionally-mandated statutory minimum sentences. *See Kimbrough v. United States, —*U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 574, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (noting that district courts remain “constrained by the mandatory mínimums Congress prescribed in the 1986 Act”); *see also United States v. Johnson,*517 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir.2008) (rejecting argument- that *Kimbrough*allowed a district court to consider the crack/powder quantity disparity in sentencing below a statutory mandatory minimum on a 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) substantial assistance motion); *United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 559, No. 07-10153, 2008 WL 886091, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 3, 2008) (After *Kimbrough,*“[sentencing courts are still constrained by Congressional policies, for example the mandatory minimum sentences contained in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.”).

The district court’s judgment reducing Black’s sentence to 60 months in prison is summarily affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### SCHENCK et al. v. DIAMOND MATCH CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

November 9, 1896.)

No. 23,

September Term, 1896.

Patents — Invention—Infringement—Friction-Match Device.

The Pusey patent, No. 483,166, for a friction-match device designed to be carried in the pocket, *held*to show sufficient invention to sustain the patent, it appearing that the device, though simple, was new in the art, and was cheap and convenient, and supplied a distinctly felt want; and the patent also *held*infringed. 71 Fed. 521, affirmed.

*209Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This was a suit in equity by the Diamond Match Company against John H. Schenck and John M. Moore, trading as Dr. J. H. Schenck & Sons, and the Binghamton Match Company, for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 483,166, issued September 27, 1892, to Joshua Pusey, for a friction-match device, designed to be carried in the pocket. The circuit court sustained the patent, found infringement, and entered a decree accordingly. 71 Fed. 521. Defendants appealed.

Charles A. Brodek, for appellants.

Joshua Pusey, for appellee.

Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges.

BUTLER, District Judge.

The decree of the circuit court must be affirmed. The record shows nothing to sustain either of the defenses set up. The defendants’ device is undistinguishable from the plaintiffs’ except in slight unimportant formal differences — apparently introduced to avoid liability for infringement.

The other defense — lack of patentable novelty — presents little greater difficulty. While the invention displayed is of a low order, it is sufficient to support the patent. The device, though simple, was new in the art, and was cheap, convenient, and supplied a want distinctly felt. Manufacturers of matches immediately recognized its usefulness, and sought the privilege of making it. The defendants were among the first to do so, and seem to have entertained no doubt respecting the validity of the patent, until their efforts to obtain such privilege on their own terms had failed. The defendants may well be regarded as experts in the art, and their conduct was an unbiased and emphatic expression of judgment in favor of the patent; their present expression and that of their experts are probably entitled to less weight.

The effort to prove anticipation by the Farnhams failed. Without considering the question whether this defense is admissible under the pleadings, it is sufficient to say that we are satisfied the defense is not proved. Nothing is shown but occasional, tentative experiments by the Farnhams, made years ago to meet their personal and temporary wants. Precisely what they accomplished is uncertain; no sample of their device is exhibited. Whatever it may have been it was never applied to nor intended for the public use; it was a mere makeshift, for a temporary purpose, which disappeared with the occasion that called for it, never known to anybody but the Farnhams, and now is almost forgotten by them.

The decree is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11487

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERIBERTO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-161-1

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Heriberto Garcia-Hernandez appeals the two-year term of supervised 

release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully 

present in the United States after previous deportation. He argues that his 

sentence is unconstitutional because it exceeds the maximum sentence for the

18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) offense charged in the indictment. Specifically, he contends 

that in order to trigger a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b), the fact of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11487 Document: 00514509197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2018
No. 17-11487

2

a prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury. He 

correctly concedes, however, that his argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Wallace, 759 

F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11487 Document: 00514509197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3295 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3295

 To amend the charter of the Archaeological Institute of America with 
          respect to the principal office of the corporation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2011

 Mr. Capuano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the charter of the Archaeological Institute of America with 
          respect to the principal office of the corporation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL CHARTER OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF 
              AMERICA.

    Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act incorporating the 
Archaeological Institute of America'', approved May 26, 1906 (34 Stat. 
203), as amended by Public Law 994 of the 84th Congress (70 Stat. 
1060), is amended by striking ``Washington, in the District of 
Columbia,'' and inserting ``such place in the United States as the 
corporation may determine,''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the Form 10-K of Carrollton Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Robert A. Altieri, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Carrollton Bancorp, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

(1)   such
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
conditions and results of operations of Carrollton Bancorp.

|/s/ Robert A. AltieriRobert A. Altieri President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

63

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         748,344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               748,344
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,915,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,614,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,915,847
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,120,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,087,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,087,826)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,087,826)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>