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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,496
<PP&E>                                          36,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,532
<BONDS>                                         38,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,188
<SALES>                                        359,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,193
<CGS>                                          296,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  296,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,624
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,624
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

</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 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31096 Summary Calendar

ALDORA SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; TERRI RICKS, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Undersecretary. Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(3:05-CV-225) Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM*: Aldora Sanford brought claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, and state law claims against his former employer, the Louisiana Department of Social Services, and Terri Ricks. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Having received no response from Sanford, the district court eventually granted the motion, but invitedSanford to respond. Sanford filed a motion for a new trial under

Rule 60(b) or alternatively for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The court denied the motion. Because we agree with the district court that the complaint fails to state a claim, we affirm. This court reviews de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit , 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Further, “[d]ismissal is proper if the complaint lacks an allegation regarding a required element necessary to obtain relief.” Rios v. City of Del Rio, 444 F.3d 417, 421 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must assert more than general legal conclusions to avoid dismissal. Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc. , 106 F.3d 1245, 1250 (5th Cir. 1997). “[T]he complaint must contain either direct allegations on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery . . . or contain allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial.” Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the briefs and relevant portions of the record, we agree with the district court that Sanford’s complaint is deficient. It alleges legal conclusions without alleging the facts necessary to support them. See Jefferson, 106 F.3d at 1250. Further, it fails to allege facts on each required element of the various causes of action. See Rios, 444 F.3d at 421. Consequently,we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Flood, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 38]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered November 9, 1995, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence under Indictment Number 95-*52800488, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered November 9, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court under Indictment Number 95-00112, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal of either judgment. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, David E. Kennedy, President and Chief Executive Office of Susquehanna Media Co., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005of Susquehanna Media Co.;     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 includedin this 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 this report;     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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. 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 the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: November 11, 2005 /s/ David E. Kennedy     David E. Kennedy    President and    Chief Executive Officer
#### Blanche Gonzalez, Respondent, v Flushing Hospital Medical Center, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 502]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Flushing Hospital Medical Center appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated August 22, 1997, as denied its motion to change venue from Kings County to Queens County, and denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Alan Barry Nerenberg, M.D., and John Joseph Pellettieri, M.D., in which it joined, which was to require the plaintiff to post security for costs pursuant to CPLR 8501 (a).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Alan Barry Nerenberg, M.D., and John Joseph Pellettieri, M.D., in which the appellant Flushing Hospital Medical Center joined, which was to require the plaintiff to post security for costs pursuant to CPLR 8501 (a) and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of security for costs which should be posted.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) *(see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169). However, as she is not a resident of this State, the plaintiff must furnish security for costs in compliance with CPLR 8501 (a) *(see, Scharaga v Schwartzberg,*149 AD2d 578, 580). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 19, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00242

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.H., et al., chil dren

,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA01398

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The C o urt R eporter ’ s Notification of L a te record is GRANTED. The reporte r ’ s record is

due on June 21, 2019

.

_______ ____________________________ Luz Elena D. Cha pa, Jus tice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of June, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HO TTLE

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James G. Boyd, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|               |  | /s/JAMES G. BOYDJames G. Boyd Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|April 14, 2003 |  |                                                                                   

---

QuickLinks
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
  1)
    
    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 or 78o(d)), 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.
 /s/ Raúl Alarcón, Jr.Name:
    
    Raúl Alarcón, Jr.Title:
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and
President
Amendment to Agreement Relating to Acquisitions



 Exhibit 10.20(a) 

AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO ACQUISTIONS 

THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO ACQUISITIONS (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the 1st day of
September, 2014, by and between the Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation (the “Company”), and MarineMax, Inc. (“MarineMax”). 

WHEREAS, MarineMax and the Company have previously entered into the Agreement Relating to Acquisitions dated December 6, 2005 (the
“Agreement”) and they now desire to amend and modify the Agreement as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing premises and as provided in Section 12 of the Agreement, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1. Dealer
Agreement. The reference to the Dealer Agreement in the recitals of the Agreement shall be modified to refer to the Sales and Service Agreements entered into by and between the Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation and MarineMax, Inc. (and
its affiliates) dated September 1, 2014. 
 2. Section 11. The first sentence of Section 11 of the Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety. 
 3. Notices. The addresses in Section 14 of the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and
are replaced with the addresses for notice in the Dealer Agreement. 
 4. Ratification. Except as specifically amended and modified
by this Amendment, all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved by the parties hereto and such terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 

5. Miscellaneous. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, regardless
of any conflicts of law principles. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their successors and permitted assigns. This Amendment may not be modified, amended or supplemented except by written
agreement of both parties. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. If executed in counterparts, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, but both of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Any signature
delivered by facsimile or other electronic transmission shall be deemed to be an original signature. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	Sea Ray Division of Brunswick Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tim Schiek

	Title:	 	President Recreational Boat Group
	
	MarineMax, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael H. McLamb

	Title:	 	Executive Vice President
#### In the Matter of James K. Norton, Petitioner, v Village of Phoenix Board of Trustees et al., Respondents.

[667 NYS2d 540]

—Determination unanimously annulled on the law with costs and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges his dismissal as the Chief of Police by respondent Village of Phoenix Board of Trustees (Board). Although the finding of petitioner’s misconduct is supported by substantial evidence, we annul the penalty of dismissal because that determination “was made in violation of lawful procedure” (CPLR 7803 [3]). The four members of the Board who voted to dismiss petitioner also preferred the charges and testified against him at the hearing. It is well established that a municipal officer is disqualified from acting on charges against an employee where he has preferred the charges, selected the Hearing Officer and appeared at the hearing to testify against the employee *(see, Matter of Memmelaar v Straub,*181 AD2d 980, 981; *Matter of Wayering v County of St. Lawrence,*140 AD2d 838, 840; *Matter of Edgar v Dowling,*96 AD2d 510, 511). The rationale for disqualification is that a Board member should not place himself in the questionable position of evaluating the credibility of his own testimony *(see, Matter of Sander v Owens,*82 AD2d 968, 968-969), especially where, as here, there is conflicting testimony and the Board must evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Further, “no legislative intent will be thwarted by * * * requiring the Judge to be someone other than the accuser” *(Matter of Sander v Owens, supra,*at 969).

We therefore annul the determination and remit the matter to respondents for a de novo determination made upon the original hearing record by persons designated by the Board who were not involved in the hearing *(see, Matter of Memmelaar v Straub, supra,*at 981-982; *Matter of Edgar v Dowling, supra,*at 511; *Matter of Sander v Owens, supra,*at 969). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Vincent C. Smith, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Quest Software, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial 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 over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 9, 2004
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TERRANCE L. McCLOUD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1774 

[October 7, 2015]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.853 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Raag Singhal, Judge; 

L.T. Case Nos. 00-4477CF10A, 00-4936CF10A and 00-5995CF10A.

Terrence L. McCloud, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s motion 

for DNA testing, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.853. 

Appellant alleged the Coral Springs Police Department had his 

fingerprints. They were allegedly obtained after his arrest in three separate 

cases in which he was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. 

He claimed DNA testing of the “crime sceen fingerprint” [sic] would 

exonerate him in the three cases. He alleged that identity was an issue in 

the cases, but he did not include a statement as to why it was, or how the 

DNA evidence would exonerate him as he claimed. This is required in 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(b)(4). Also, the motion was not 

verified as required in Rule 3.853(b). 

Affirmance is without prejudice to appellant promptly filing a legally 

sufficient motion if he can do so in good faith. Rosa v. State, 147 So. 3d 

583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 2d 1001, 1005 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). 
2

Affirmed without prejudice. 

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.