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


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998         
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                           1,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0            
<RECEIVABLES>                                      185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,133
<PP&E>                                           7,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,356
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,479
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,629
<CGS>                                            9,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,288) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,288)                         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated December 9, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-199603) of Smart Trust, Adelante
REIT Growth & Income Trust, Series 5.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


December 9, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Dread, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 81]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his suppression motion based upon an impermissibly suggestive photo array. We disagree. The photo array contains photographs of men with similar physical features *(see, People v Burns,*186 AD2d 1015, 1016, *lv denied*81 NY2d 837; *see also, People v Gray,*186 AD2d 1058, *lv denied*81 NY2d 840). Moreover, there is no “characteristic of one picture [that] draws the viewer’s attention to that picture, indicating that the police [were urging] a particular selection” *(People v Emmons,*123 AD2d 475, 476, *lv denied*69 NY2d 827; *see, People v Rogers*[appeal No. 1], 245 AD2d 1041 [decided herewith]).

We reject defendant’s contention that the comment, “Oh, yeah, that’s him”, by the victim’s boyfriend after the victim had viewed the photo array and identified defendant improperly tainted the victim’s subsequent lineup identification of defendant *(see generally, People v Rodriguez,*64 NY2d 738; *People v Simmonds,*182 AD2d 650, *lv denied*80 NY2d 910). We note that the victim knew defendant and that the victim’s boyfriend was not present during the rape. In any event, the lineup identification of defendant by the victim two months after she identified him in the photo array was sufficiently attenuated in time to nullify any possible taint *(see, People v Smith,*140 AD2d 647, *lv denied*72 NY2d 961; *see also, People v Lee,*207 AD2d 953, 954, *lv denied*85 NY2d 864; *People v Thomas,*161 AD2d 543, *lv denied*76 NY2d 866).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
[Letterhead]

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
2400 First Indiana Plaza
135 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN  46204-2452




The Board of Directors
Union Acceptance Corporation:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement  (No.
333-09717) on Form S-8 of Union Acceptance  Corporation of our report dated July
30, 1997,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of the Union Acceptance
Corporation  and  Subsidiaries  as of June 30,  1997 and 1996,  and the  related
consolidated  statements of earnings and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended June 30, 1997, and the related consolidated statement of
shareholders'  equity for the years ended June 30, 1997 and 1996,  which  report
appears  in the June 30,  1997  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Union  Acceptance
Corporation.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
September 12, 1997
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

TERRY BRADLEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2023

- 1878

June 5 , 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco

, Judge.

Terry Bradley, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN

, and BLACK , JJ.

, Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Alfredo RUELAS-RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73633.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

*702Glen Alan Prior, Esquire, Pacific Law Inc., PS, Fife, WA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse Matthew Bless, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, ORP-Distriet Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Ruelas-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *Ramos v. INS,*246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Ruelas-Rodriguez is statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where the agency did not find that Ruelas-Rodriguez made false statements with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. *See Kungys v. United States,*485 U.S. 759, 780, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (“Section 1101(f)(6) applies to only those misrepresentations made with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits,” and not to misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as fear, embarrassment, or a desire for privacy); *United States v. Hovsepian,*422 F.3d 883, 887-88 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (no subjective intent to deceive under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where inaccuracies resulted from poor memory, mistake, or vague questioning). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration of Ruelas-Rodriguez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure in the alternative.

In light of our disposition, we do not address Ruelas-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,398
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                          50
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,531)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
<FN>
*Less than .01 per share
</FN>



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(a)

 

18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification

 

I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the accompanying Form 10-K of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2008, 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)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bancorp.

 

 

 

| /s/ Mary B. Halsey                    |   | March 30, 2009 |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------|
| Mary B. Halsey                        |   | Date           |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |           |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |           |
|                                  |   |           |
|                                  |   |           |
|                                  |   |           |
exh10_2.htm


 










Exhibit 10.2


 


 



THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE


 


HOUSTON WIRE & CABLE COMPANY


 


2006 STOCK PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Houston Wire & Cable Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), maintains the Houston Wire & Cable Company 2006 Stock Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company has reserved the authority to amend the Plan and now deems it appropriate to do so.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of November 4, 2014, as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:







 


The total number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan shall be 1,800,000.  Such shares may be either authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares and shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.3 below.  The number of shares of Common Stock delivered by a Participant or withheld by HWC on behalf of any such Participant as full or partial payment of any minimum required withholding taxes on Stock Awards or Stock Units shall once again be available for issuance pursuant to subsequent Awards, and shall not count towards the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan.  Any shares of Common Stock subject to an Award may thereafter be available for issuance pursuant to subsequent Awards, and shall not count towards the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan, if there is a lapse, forfeiture, expiration, termination or cancellation of any such prior Award for any reason (including for reasons described in Section 3.3), or if shares of Common Stock are issued under such Award and thereafter are reacquired by HWC pursuant to rights reserved by HWC upon issuance thereof.


 



	
2.  

	
Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to add, after subsection (c), a new subsection (d) as follows:







 


(d)           The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock as to which a Key Employee may receive Stock Awards and Stock Units in any calendar year is 150,000.


 



	
3.  

	
Section 12.1(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end thereof:  “For this purpose, repricing includes a reduction in the exercise price of a Stock Option or the cancellation of a Stock Option in exchange for cash, Stock Options with an exercise price less than the exercise price of the cancelled Stock Options, other Awards or any other consideration provided by the Company.”







 


 


 




  





  











  






 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment has been executed on this 4th day of November, 2014.


 



	 	HOUSTON WIRE & CABLE COMPANY
	 	 	 
	 	By:	Nicol G. Graham                                                                      
	 	 	Nicol G. Graham
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
	 	 	 







 


30186-0000


 


CH2\15785411.4
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-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 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:  May 14, 2008By:/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.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1  - SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     JURISDICTION
      COMPANY                                        OF ORGANIZATION               OWNERSHIP
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      <S>                                            <C>                                <C>
      PRI Automation Taiwan, Ltd.                    Taiwan                             100%
      PRI Automation, SARL                           France                             100%
      PRI Automation Ireland, Inc.                   Ireland                            100%
      PRI Automation Korea, Inc.                     Korea                              100%
      PRI Automation, LTD                            United Kingdom                     100%
      PRI Automation Israel, Inc.                    Israel                             100%
      PRI Automation GmbH                            Germany                            100%
      PRI Automation Pte, Ltd                        Singapore                          100%
      Precision Robots FSC, Inc.                     U.S.Virgin Islands                 100%
      PRI Security Corporation                       Massachusetts                      100%
      Interval Logic Corporation                     Massachusetts                      100%
      Equipe Technologies, Inc.                      California                         100%
      Equipe Japan, Ltd.                             Japan                              100%
      Chiptronix Handling Systems, GmbH              Switzerland                        100%
      PRI Switzerland, Inc.                          Massachusetts                      100%
      PRI Holdings, Inc.                             Massachusetts                      100%
      PRI International Holdings, Inc.               Massachusetts                      100%
      PRI Ontario                                    Canada                             100%
      PRI Automation Canada                          Canada                             100%
      MSISUB Inc.                                    Delaware                           100%
      Promis Systems Corporation Ltd.                Hong Kong                          100%
      Promis Systems Corporation (U.K.) Ltd.         United Kingdom                     100%
      Promis Systems GmbH I GR.                      Germany                            100%
      Promis Systems Corp Singapore Pte. Ltd         Singapore                          100%
      PRI Korea, Ltd.                                Korea                               80%

</TABLE>

          The subsidiaries listed are all included in the consolidated financial
          statements of the Company.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            9848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9848
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   82468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         61354
<OTHER-SE>                                      (91373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     82468
<SALES>                                         114925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                114945
<CGS>                                            79010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    79010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 89013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (54610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (42821)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk April 24 , 2020

16 12 38

- 9 ( 135 )

GREAT LAKES CAPITAL FUND FOR

HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP XII

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 1612 38, 161239

v COA: 349763; 349931

Saginaw CC: 18

- 035570

- CB

ERWIN COMPANIES , LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee

, and

STACY ERWIN OAKES,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

_____________ __________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to waive the filing

fees is GRANTED as to this case only

.