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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND ON PAGES 1 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         742,855
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  263,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,360,999
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,872,239
<PP&E>                                       5,716,969
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,881,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,016,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,512,586
<BONDS>                                      6,917,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,336
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,562,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,016,975
<SALES>                                     20,441,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,441,901
<CGS>                                        8,821,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,939,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (78,984)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             623,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,042,798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,609
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,066,407)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,313,411
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,752,996)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.67)
        


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40720 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

LUIS JASSO BOTELLO
,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09

- CR

- 325

- 1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Jasso Botello

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jasso Botello h a s not filed a res ponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 21 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40720 Document: 00513012876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015No. 14

- 40720

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdr aw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40720 Document: 00513012876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Vincent C. Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc.



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|      |  |                   |  | 
|Date: |  | December 31, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Vincent C. Smith   
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Vincent C. Smith       
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
[No. 41571-2-II.

Division Two.

October 2, 2012.]

#### Thomas Lowry et al., *Plaintiffs,*v. Allenmore Ridge Condominium Association, *Respondent,*Bert L. Thompson et al., *Defendants,*Ray E. Pedersen et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 09-2-10623-7, Susan Serko, J., entered November 12, 2010 *.Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Penoyar, J.,

concurred in by Hunt, J., and Armstrong, J. Pro Tern.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50167

Summary Calendar

 

RUBY STEEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CV-142

- - - - - - - - - -

September 17, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruby Steen appeals the district court’s judgment affirming

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her

claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. She argues that the district court and the Commissioner

failed to apply the correct legal standards in reviewing her case

and that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by

substantial evidence.
No. 98-50167 

-2-

After careful review of the record and the arguments, we

hold that the district court’s and the Commissioner’s decisions 

that Steen was “not disabled” are consistent with applicable

legal standards and are supported by substantial evidence. See

Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 1994); Anthony v.

Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                    TO THE
                             METRO NETWORKS, INC.
                       1996 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN

        This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Metro Networks, Inc. 1996 
Incentive Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), made pursuant to action of the Board 
of Directors of Metro Networks, Inc. pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Plan, is 
dated as of October 8, 1997. The Plan is hereby amended as follows:

        1. The following definition shall be added to Section 1 of the Plan:

           "Nonstatutory Stock Option" means an Option not described in Section 
           422(b), 423(b) or 424(c)(3)(B) of the Code.

        2. Section 6.2 of the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

           A) by deleting the lead in paragraph of such Section and substituting
              the following in lieu thereof:

           "Each Option shall be subject to the following conditions, which
           conditions shall be stated within the applicable Incentive Stock
           Option Agreement. Any Option which does not comply with these
           provisions shall not be considered an Incentive Stock Option but
           instead shall be considered a Nonstatutory Stock Option issued under
           the Plan."

           B) by adding the words "but instead shall be considered Nonstatutory
              Stock Options" at the end of the first sentence of subsection (a)
              thereof.

        The terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect without 
modification or amendment except as expressly set forth herein.
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



I, Chris Innes, state and attest that:



|1. | I am the President of Main Place Funding, LLC (the Registrant).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report) containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods
presented.



|               
|---------------
|/s/ Chris Innes
|Chris Innes    
|President      
|March 31, 2005 





26
EX-23.2

Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of AMCON Distributing Company on Form S-8 of our report dated
November 22, 2000, except for paragraph one of Note 1 and paragraph one of
Note 2, for which the date is March 23, 2001, relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.  We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated November 22, 2000 relating to
the financial statement schedule which appears in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Omaha, Nebraska
December 27, 2001
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Biggs, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 589]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis J. Boyle, J., at plea; Eugene Oliver, Jr., J., at sentence), rendered on or about August 2, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.
#### Daniel LaRusso et al., Appellants, v Brookstone, Inc., Respondent, and Salvatore Rizzo, Appellant.

[860 NYS2d 179]

*577In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Salvatore Rizzo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated April 18, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendant Brookstone, Inc., for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103, and the plaintiffs separately appeal from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed as abandoned *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion by the defendant Brookstone, Inc., for a protective order is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Salvatore Rizzo payable by the defendant Brookstone, Inc.

Generally, when a party to the action is to be deposed, the deposition should take place “within the county . . . where the action is pending” (CPLR 3110 [1]). An exception to this rule is where a party demonstrates that examination in that county would cause “undue hardship” *(Rodriguez v Infinity Ins. Co.,*283 AD2d 969, 970 [2001]; *Farrakhan v N.Y.P. Holdings,*226 AD2d 133,135 [1996]; *cf. Rogovin v Rogovin,*3 AD3d 352 [2004]; *Hoffman v Kraus,*260 AD2d 435, 437 [1999]). In this case, the defendant Brookstone, Inc., which is headquartered in Merrimack, New Hampshire, failed to demonstrate that the appearance for a deposition in Suffolk County constituted an undue hardship. Therefore, it was not entitled to a protective order. Rivera, J.P, Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.
#### EASTERN SAVINGS BANK, FSB *v.*ROBERT GILEWSKI

(AC 32456)

Lavine, Bear and Espinosa, Js.

Submitted on briefs October 28

officially released November 15, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new law day.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H. III,

A CHILD. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00001

- CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

Of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2013DCM2786)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P . 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., Not Participating
#### Reginald BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7083.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 23, 2010.

Reginald Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In the Matter of Jennifer A. Cole, Appellant, v James S. Cole, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 253]

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), entered May 25, 2012, which partially granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

The parties are the parents of two sons (born in 2007 and 2008). In October 2011, we affirmed an order of Family Court granting a request by respondent (hereinafter the father) for, among other things, joint legal custody of the children *(Matter of Cole v Cole,*88 AD3d 1104, 1104-1105 [2011]). Further proceedings resulted in a March 2012 order of Family Court that included a provision for the father’s additional visitation. One week later, petitioner (hereinafter the mother) commenced this proceeding to modify the terms of the father’s visitation. The parties appeared before Family Court and, without holding *1172a hearing, the court determined that the visitation schedule set forth in the March 2012 order should continue unaltered. The mother now appeals, arguing that Family Court erred by determining the matter without holding a fact-finding hearing.

While this appeal was pending, the parties entered into a consent order in December 2012, modifying the order from which the mother appeals. The consent order indicates that the parties appeared with their respective attorneys and “entered into ... a mutually agreed settlement of any and all then pending petitions.” Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Family Court (Morris, J.) ordered that, among other things, the father would have alternate weekend “parenting time.” Inasmuch as the mother’s arguments on this appeal are addressed solely to the father’s visitation rights and the subsequent consent order is similarly addressed to further redefining those rights, this appeal is moot *(see Matter of Rolston v Decker,*94 AD3d 1264, 1264 [2012]; *Matter of Yishak v Ashera,*68 AD3d 1282, 1284 [2009]; *Matter of Carella v Ferrara,*9 AD3d 605, 605 [2004]; *Matter of Rebecca O. v Todd P.,*309 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]).

Stein, J.P, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Exhibit 10.27

Confidential  portions of this document  have been omitted and filed  separately
with the Commission.

ALUMAX                                                2700 International Drive
TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS                                              Suite 200
                                                        West Chicago, IL 60185
                           VIA FACSIMILE 319/547-6099             630/584-1000
November 27, 1996                                             Fax 630/584-1243

Mr. Gary Ihrke
Vice President, Operations
Featherlite Manufacturing, Inc.
Box 320
Cresco, IA 52136

Dear Gary:

This letter will confirm that Alumax  Transportation  Products  agrees to supply
and you agree to purchase  ********** pounds of aluminum extrusions for delivery
January,  1997 through December,  1997 via our assigned contract number ATP0078.
Pricing during this contract period will be firm at $********** per pound.

Based  upon  your  commitment,  Alumax  Transportation  Products  has  taken the
necessary  actions,  via an established metal position,  to provide a firm price
for the duration of this  agreement.  It is expected that  shipments of finished
product  will  occur  in  a  timely  manner,  which  in  this  case  equates  to
approximately ********** pounds on a monthly basis.

In the event you do not  fulfill  the  volume  commitment  during  the  contract
period,  you will be invoiced  for and  expected  to pay an amount  equal to any
financial  loss we incurred on the metal  position  we  established  in order to
provide  you with this firm price  contract.  The  amount you would be  invoiced
would be calculated  in accordance  with the attached  Alumax  Extrusions,  Inc.
terms and conditions regarding firm priced contracts.

We believe the above  establishes  the essence of our  agreement  and we request
that you acknowledge  receipt and forward a signed copy of this contract for our
files.

We appreciate your confidence in Alumax Transportation Products and look forward
to the successful completion of this contract.

Best regards,


/s/ Ted E. Smothers                          ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:
Ted E. Smothers                              /s/ Gary Ihrke          12/2/96
Vice President, Sales & Marketing                Gary Ihrke
                                                 Vice President, Operations
                                                 Featherlite Manufacturing, Inc.


                                      - 1 -
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodolfo Lora, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 864]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on or about March 1, 1996, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *{See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

*22Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.