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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         900,503
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   192
<PP&E>                                         962,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,865,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,666
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,839,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,865,841
<SALES>                                         39,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,275
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,011
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 on Form 10-K of Navarre
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2004 (the "Annual
Report"), I, James Gilbertson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Annual 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)); and

      2.    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

June 29, 2004                                  By  /s/ James Gilbertson
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                       James Gilbertson
                                                       Vice President and
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

 

January 15, 2021

t0112

Order 

Clerk

January 15, 2021

162396 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 162396

COA: 355121 

Macomb CC: 2015-003739-FC

JOSHUA ANTHONY SEDGEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. WILLIAM NIMMO, 3rd, DEFENDANT.

Morris County Court Law Division

Decided February 8, 1951.

*Mr. John D. Collins,*County Prosecutor, attorney for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Camarata*& Colonna, attorneys for defendant.

Barrett, J. C. C.

This is an appeal from a conviction in the Magistrate’s Court of the Borough of Riverdale on a charge of violating *B. 8.*39 :4-50, driving automobile while under the influence of liquor.

The defendant did not take part in the proceedings before the magistrate except to move for a dismissal on the ground *607that no warrant was issued for the purpose of bringing the defendant before the magistrate. It is agreed between the prosecutor and attorneys for the defendant, that this court should first rule upon the question of the jurisdiction of the magistrate to hear the matter, and that if the decision upholds the magistrate’s jurisdiction, that then a date will be fixed for a trial *de novo*on the merits. This was on the theory that in the event that this court determines that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction, the whole matter would fall and there would be no need of proceeding on the merits o£ the case.

The defendant contends under *Rule*8 :10 — 1 that the complaint was not sufficient and proper as it did not comply with *Rule*8 :3 — 1. Evidently the defendant failed to take notice of the change in *Rule*8 :10~1 as amended on November 10, 1949. The amendment of this rule leaves out any reference to *Rule 8*:3-l.

The defendant also contends that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction because no warrant was issued for defendant’s arrest as provided in *R. 8.*39 :5-25. The cases referred to in defendant’s brief were decided prior to the adoption of our present rules of court and prior to the decision in the case of *Winberry v. Salisbury,*5 *N. J.*240 (1950). On November 10, 1949, *Rule*8 :10 — 1 was amended to provide for a new “uniform traffic ticket” consisting of four parts, one of which was the summons. It is my opinion that, under the decision in the case of *Winberry v. Salisbury, supra,*the question at issue here is a matter of procedure and not of substantive law, and that under *Rule*8 :10-1 it was proper to serve a summons on the defendant and not a warrant. I have read the transcript of proceedings in the magistrate’s court and am satisfied that the complaint was sufficient and the defendant was properly before the magistrate’s court by the service of a summons rather than a warrant.

The parties may arrange for a date, if desired, for a trial *de novo*on the merits.
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.                  

###### Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Monday, February 26, 2001. 

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. 

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information:

                        You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at                         *http://www.federalreserve.gov*                         for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.                     

Dated: February 16, 2001.

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 01-4447 Filed 2-16-01; 5:04 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                       690
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,597
<PP&E>                                           3,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,489
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,392
<SALES>                                         21,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,597
<CGS>                                           16,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  99
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    118
<INCOME-TAX>                                        54
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 40
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        40
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000912276
<NAME> BRYLANE CAPITAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,474
<INVENTORY>                                    219,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               299,087
<PP&E>                                          98,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 710,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          225,028
<BONDS>                                        329,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,370
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   710,540
<SALES>                                      1,314,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,314,839
<CGS>                                          677,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  677,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               515,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,932
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,030)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,524
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Vardan PETROSYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74335.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2011.

Elsa Ines Martinez, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Nehal Kamani, Christopher McGreal, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Vardan Petrosyan and family, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Singh v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than six years after the BIA’s June 11, 2002, order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, *see Singh,*491 F.3d at 1096-97.

Because the BIA failed to address petitioners’ request that the BIA exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we remand for the BIA to consider petitioners’ request in the first instance. *See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales,*486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

*36PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Tyrone D. MURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC.; AT & T Government Solutions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-1728.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Tyrone D. Murry, Appellant Pro Se. James Marion Powell, Jillian McConnell White, Womble, Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Greensboro, North Carolina; William Randolph Loftis, Jr., William J. McMahon, IV, Kristine Marie Sims, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone D. Murry appeals the district court’s judgment entered after a jury trial on an employment discrimination claim. Murry also challenges the district court’s order denying his motions to compel and requesting additional discovery. We have reviewed the record, including the tran*266scripts, and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. *Murry v. Jacobs Tech, Inc.,*No. 1:10-ev-00771-N CT-JEP (M.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2012; May 8, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-17646

 

UNITED INVESTORS INCOMEPROPERTIES

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

June 11, 2001



Graham Capital Management, L.P.
Stamford Harbour Park
333 Ludlow Street
Stamford, Ct. 06902

Attention:  Mr. Kenneth G.  Tropin

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewal

Dear Mr. Tropin:

We are  writing  with  respect  to  your  management  agreement  concerning  the
commodity pool to which reference is made below (the "Management Agreement"). We
are extending the term of the Management Agreement through June 30, 2002 and all
other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain unchanged.

o        Smith Barney Global Markets Futures Fund
o        Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
o        Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
o        Salomon Smith Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.

Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel  McAuliffe at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5435.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:
     /s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         Chief Financial Officer & Director

AGREED AND ACCEPTED
GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGMENT, L.P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         118,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  732,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,095
<INVENTORY>                                    691,951
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,675,369
<PP&E>                                       1,731,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                 447,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,969,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,297,593
<BONDS>                                        614,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,059
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,059,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,969,278
<SALES>                                      3,595,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,674,243
<CGS>                                        1,120,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,229,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,177,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (664,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (664,996)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (664,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.64)

</TABLE>