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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         302,484
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,875,094
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    100,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,131,621
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,144,000
<LOANS>                                     18,451,630
<ALLOWANCE>                                     46,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,545,516
<DEPOSITS>                                  25,263,850
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            199,298
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,045,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              29,545,516
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,393,895
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              173,380
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               347,285
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,914,560
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,168,346
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,168,346
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          746,214
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                552,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                227,219
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     142,177
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.76
<LOANS-NON>                                     96,100
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                40,171
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               46,171
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            46,171
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     36,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,127)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         58,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,117)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,760
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,543
<CGS>                                            3,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,126)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,907)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.79)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oscar Martinez, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 495]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Angiolillo, J.), rendered July 24, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). The trial court properly found that the requisite intent could be inferred from the circumstances of the defendant’s entry into the complainant’s apartment *(see, People v Mackey,*49 NY2d 274; *People v Mazer,*208 AD2d 956).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco DeJesus Morales, Jr., Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 448]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered August 26, 1996, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the underlying plea allocution, the defendant admitted to acts which constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the *392first degree *(see,*Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). Moreover, the record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty to the crime *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0367 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MATTHEW RYAN AILER, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FILED 

OCT 0 6 2021 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State or rtilnntaria 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of tirne, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's opening brief shall be filed on or 

before November 8, 2021. 

DATED this day of October, 2021. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

10/06/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0367
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.8



AMENDMENT FIVE
TO 
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN


WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company sponsors The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental Pension Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (the “Benefits Committee”) may amend the Plan at any time;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows, effective as provided herein:


		
	1.
	Effective March 23, 2018, a new Section 7.6 Restriction on Venue shall be added following Section 7.5, and the following paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly:




“7.6    Restriction on Venue. Any legal action in connection with the Plan by an Employee, Participant, Beneficiary, Joint Annuitant, or other interested party shall only be brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia.”


		
	2.
	Effective March 23, 2018, the following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 6.4.




“All suits must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia in accordance with Section 7.6.”


		
	3.
	Effective April 28, 2018, the following shall be added to Appendix A: Business Services North America, LLC




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Committee has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized member as of this      day of March 2018.


THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
BENEFITS COMMITTEE


BY:_________________________________
Allison O’Sullivan
Exhibit 32.1  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:  August 10, 2007By:/s/ Harmel RayatHarmel Rayat
President and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.3


		
			Exhibit 10.3
		

		
			 
		

		
			ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Schedule of Signatories* to a Director Indemnification Agreement
		

		
			 
		

		
			Mark E. Tomkins
		

		
			Peter L. Cella 
		

		
			William C. Cobb (effective April 9, 2018)
		

		
			John B. Corness 
		

		
			Laurie Ann Goldman
		

		
			Naren K. Gursahaney 
		

		
			Richard P. Fox
		

		
			Stephen J. Sedita
		

		
			Nikhil M. Varty
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			*  Jerri L. DeVard, Robert J. Gillette, Thomas C. Tiller, Jr.,  John Krenicki, Jr., David H. Wasserman, Darren M. Friedman, Sarah Kim and Curtis D. Hecht each previously signed a Director Indemnification Agreement, but they are no longer serving on our Board of Directors.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			The form of Director Indemnification Agreement was filed with the SEC on June 19, 2014 as Exhibit 10.71 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 of ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                490
<SECURITIES>                            0         
<RECEIVABLES>                         117 
<ALLOWANCES>                            0        
<INVENTORY>                           252          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,084     
<PP&E>                              8,502        
<DEPRECIATION>                      3,459    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      6,934  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,336
<BONDS>                                 0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0         
<PREFERRED>                         1,755     
<COMMON>                              149
<OTHER-SE>                              0         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        6,934             
<SALES>                                 0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    5,450           
<CGS>                               3,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       6,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       34
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (703)    
<INCOME-TAX>                            0              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0                 
<DISCONTINUED>                          0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0         
<CHANGES>                               0          
<NET-INCOME>                         (703)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.05)  
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.3

                                AUDITORS' REPORT


To the Directors of
Promis Systems Corporation Ltd.

     We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Promis Systems
Corporation Ltd. as at December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the consolidated
statements of income (loss) and retained earnings (deficit) and changes in
financial position for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

     We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, which require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable
assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well
as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

     In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of the Company as at December 31,
1997 and 1996 and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial
position for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in Canada.

Toronto, Canada                                (Signed)  Ernst & Young LLP
February 27, 1998                                    Chartered Accountants
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 6, 2009 |                     |                    |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      | By:                      | /s/  Ulrich Gottschling |
|                      | Ulrich  Gottschling      |
|                      | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 335 

To provide for a 10 percent reduction in pay for Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2011 

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a 10 percent reduction in pay for Members 

of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN PAY FOR MEMBERS OF CON4 GRESS. 

5 (a) REDUCTION.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, the annual rate of pay for each Member of 

7 Congress shall be as follows: 

8 (1) For pay periods during the period beginning 

9 October 1, 2011, and ending December 31, 2012, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 335 IH

1 the applicable rate in effect as of the date of the en2 actment of this Act. 

3 (2) For pay periods occurring during 2013, the 

4 applicable rate during the period described in para5 graph (1) reduced by 10 percent, rounded to the 

6 nearest multiple of $100 (or, if midway between 

7 multiples of $100, to the next higher multiple of 

8 $100). 

9 (3) For subsequent pay periods, the applicable 

10 rate during 2013, subject to adjustment under para11 graph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative Reor12 ganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)). 

13 (b) MEMBER OF CONGRESS DEFINED.—For pur14 poses of this Act, the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means 

15 an individual serving in a position under subparagraph 

16 (A), (B), or (C) of section 601(a) of the Legislative Reor17 ganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Wilson CHOUEST, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 09-16213.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Steven Charles Sanders, Sanders & Associates, West Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for RespondentAppellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Wilson Chouest appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Chouest contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not sup*736ported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, -, 181 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Chouest raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Chouest’s request for further briefing is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-40-2017]

On May 30, 2017, the Charlotte Regional Partnership, Inc., grantee of FTZ 57, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of DNP Imagingcomm America Corporation (DNP), within Subzone 57C, in Concord, North Carolina.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (82 FR 28627-28628, June 23, 2017). On September 27, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's conditional decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a five-year time limit (ending September 27, 2022) on admission of foreign status chemical binders (classifiable under HTSUS 3824.90, according to the notification).                

Dated: September 27, 2017.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-21215 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Travelers Insurance, Appellant, and Huando Torres et al., Respondents.

[665 NYS2d 86]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 3, 1996, which denied petitioner insurer’s application to stay arbitration of respondents’ underinsured motorist claims, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to temporarily stay such arbitration and all disclosure therein pending resolution of respondents’ personal injury actions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*83Respondents’ notice of their intent to seek underinsured motorist benefits was not untimely, where they first became aware of the amount of other available coverage not long before they served the notice, in the course of presenting their personal injury actions. The uninsured portion of petitioner’s policy does not specifically set forth any time limits for the giving of such notice, and petitioner had timely notice of the accident and was able to conduct an investigation *(see, Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Schrem,*227 AD2d 280). Nor is there merit to petitioner’s claim that respondents’ demand for arbitration did not adequately state the nature of the controversy. However, since the availability of underinsured benefits depends upon the exhaustion of “every last dollar” payable under any applicable bodily injury liability policy *(Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v Watnick,*80 NY2d 539, 546), and since the issue of such exhaustion cannot be determined until respondents’ personal injury actions have been resolved, we modify to temporarily stay the arbitration, and any disclosure therein, pending resolution of the personal injury actions, a result to which the respondents consent. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.