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

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            24,440
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  25,348
<CASH>                                           2,066
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,430
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  2,069
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,430
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,302
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       1
<BENEFITS>                                          36
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          4
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    910
<INCOME-TAX>                                       307
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                603
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       603
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        



</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 14, 2005 Session

TENNESSEE FARMERS LIFE REASSURANCE COMPANY 

v. LINDA S. ROSE, ET AL.

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Morgan County

No. 03-196 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor

No. E2005-00006-COA-R3-CV - FILED MARCH 17, 2006 

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from majority’s decision to affirm the Trial Court’s grant of

summary judgment. I would reverse the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment.

I concur completely with the majority’s statements both of the facts and of the law

applicable to these facts. I agree with the majority’s statement that “the language of the power of

attorney governs as to whether Ms. Rose possessed the authority to change the beneficiary

designation on the deceased’s life insurance policy.” Likewise, I agree with the majority that “[t]he

language of the deceased’s power of attorney clearly and unambiguously recites the powers of the

attorney in fact with respect to the deceased’s life insurance.” The language of the deceased’s power

of attorney controls and that applicable language is:

to transact all insurance business on my behalf, to apply for or

continue policies, collect profits, file claims, make demands, enter

into compromise and settlement agreements, file suits or actions and

take any other action necessary or proper in this regard; 

Where I differ with the majority is with its ultimate conclusion that the language of

the deceased’s power of attorney did not include the power to change the beneficiary on the

deceased’s life insurance policy. I believe that “all insurance business” means just what it says.

Likewise, I believe that “take any other action necessary or proper in this regard. . .” also means just

what it says. The word “all” means one hundred percent and does not mean “most” or “some”.

Likewise, I think the word “any” as used here also means one hundred percent of the actions
-2-

necessary or proper to transact the deceased’s insurance business. As used in this power of attorney,

“all” and “any” are interchangeable.

I agree with the majority’s statement that “[w]e cannot read into the power of attorney

that which is not there.” However, I also believe the converse to be true in that we cannot read out

of the power of attorney that which is there. The deceased’s power of attorney specifically granted

Ms. Rose the power to transact “all insurance business” and to “take any other action necessary or

proper in this regard. . . .” A change of the beneficiary on a life insurance policy is most certainly

an action “to transact. . . insurance business. . . .”

For these reasons, I believe the Trial Court erred in granting summary judgment on

the grounds relied on by the Trial Court. I would reverse Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment,

and for this reason respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. 

___________________________________ 

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE
#### FLOYD *v.*FLOYD.

There was no abuse of discretion in granting the injunction and appointing a receiver.

Submitted March 2,

Decided March 28, 1901.

Injunction and receiver. Before Judge Smith. Wilcox superior court. November 12, 1900.

*E. D. Graham*and *Martin Gannon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hal Lawson*and *Eldridge Gutts,*contra.

Lumpkin, P. J.

The bill of exceptions brings under review a judgment granting an interlocutory injunction and appointing a receiver, upon a petition filed by a wife against her husband, alleging waste and mismanagement by him of her property. Much evidence was introduced at the hearing, and it was in many respects conflict-* ing, but that portion of it bearing in the plaintiff’s favor sustained her contention that all of the property in dispute was the product of her funds.- Assuming this to be true, she was entitled to the relief sought, and the case falls within the oft-repeated rule that, under such circumstances, this court will not interfere with the exercise by the trial judge of the discretion conferred upon him by law.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 10.10.1

                  ADDENDUM TO THAT CERTAIN LEASE BY AND BETWEEN
                  CARL D. PANATTONI AND JOHN E. VAN VALKENBURGH
         ("LANDLORD") AND WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, A CORPORATION ("TENANT")

         This Addendum shall modify and, to the extent inconsistent with, amend
that certain real estate lease between CARL D. PANATTONI and JOHN E. VAN
VALKENBURGH (collectively "Landlord") and WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., (the
"Tenant"). Except as expressly set forth in the Addendum, all capitalized terms
shall have the meanings assigned to them in the preprinted lease and the
previous Addendum and Riders. The preprinted lease, previous addendum and riders
shall be referred to as the "Lease."

The following section is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 1.12: Rent and Other Charges Payable By Tenant.
-------------------------------------------------------

         (a) Base Rent. The initial monthly base rent ("Base Rent") per square
             ---------
foot (measured outside wall to outside wall) shall be calculated at (i)
Twenty-Six and 9/10 Cents ($0.269) per square foot for months one and two (1 and
2) of the Lease Term; (ii) Twenty-Nine and 9/10 Cents ($0.299) per square foot
for months three through sixty (3-60) of the Lease Term; and then (iii)
Thirty-Two and 9/10 Cents ($0.329) per square foot per month for months
Sixty-One through month One Hundred and Eighty (61-180); and shall be paid
monthly as provided in Section 3.01. As additional Base Rent, Tenant will make a
lump sum payment to Landlord of Two Hundred and Forty Thousand and no/100
($240,000) Dollars no later than August 1, 1996.


LANDLORD:

By:      /s/  Carl Panattoni                                       6/3/96
       ------------------------------                       -------------------
        Carl D. Panattoni                                           Date


By:      /s/ John E. Van Valkenburgh
       ------------------------------                       -------------------
        John E. Van Valkenburgh                                     Date


TENANT:

By:     /s/  John C. Zott
       -----------------------------                       ---------------------
        John C. Zott                                                Date
        CFO


By:     /s/  Bonnie Tragni
       -----------------------------                        --------------------
        Bonnie Tragni                                               Date
        Director of Real Estate
----

| Covered Employee        |   | Estimated      Risk Adjusted Expected Value of a Performance Share |   | Compensation Target |   | PerformanceShares Awarded |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|---------------------------|
| Steven      R. Williams |   | $      30.76                                                       |   | $700,000            |   | 22,757                    |
| Rick      McCullough    |   | $      30.76                                                       |   | $255,000            |   |  8,290               |
| Eric      R. Stearns    |   | $      30.76                                                       |   | $221,125            |   |  7,189               |
| Bart      Brookman      |   | $      30.76                                                       |   | $125,000            |   |  3,698               |
| Dan      Amidon         |   | $      30.76                                                       |   | $113,750            |   |  2,773               |

| Share      Price3      Year PeriodEnding 12/31/10 |   | Share      Price4      Year PeriodEnding 12/31/11 |   | Share      Price5      Year PeriodEnding 12/31/12 |   |   Vested      Percentage |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
| $      80.00                                      |   | $90.00                                            |   | $100.00                                           |   | 50%                                |
| $      90.00                                      |   | $102.50                                           |   | $120.00                                           |   | 75%                                |
| $100.00                                           |   | $117.50                                           |   | $142.50                                           |   | 100%                               |

----

| CAGR |   | Vested      Percentage |
|------|--------|------------------------|
| 12%  |   | 50%                    |
| 16%  |   | 75%                    |
| 20%  |   | 100%                   |

----

----

----
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**


Certifications




I,
      Lei,
      Ming, Chief Executive Officer certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dark Dynamite Inc.





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





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





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(c) and 15d-(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 consolidates subsidiaries,
      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 the effectiveness 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 most recent fiscal period 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      All
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
      and





b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which
      do
      not apply); and





Date:
      August 15, 2007





/s/
      Lei, Ming


Lei,
      Ming
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.                  

###### Agency for International Development

###### Board for International Food and Agricultural Development

      ( print page 12923)    
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the one hundred and thirty-fourth meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on March 29th, 2001 and from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on March 30th, 2001, in the NASULGC Meeting Room, 1307 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

The first day will be devoted to a joint session with the CRSPs (Collaborative Research Support Programs—consortia of universities and international research entities devoted to agricultural commodity or theme research). The second day focuses on the future of university-government partnerships on international agriculture, and on visions for BIFAD itself.

Those wishing to attend the meeting to obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact Mr. Lawrence Paulson, the Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. Write him in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Office of Agriculture and Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2.11-073, Washington DC, 20523-2110 or telephone him at (202) 712-1436 or fax (202) 216-3010.

Lawrence Paulson,

USAID Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD, Office of Agriculture and Food Security, Economic, Growth Center, Bureau for Global Programs.

[FR Doc. 01-4988  Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
#### Anush YELAGHATYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70761.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 19, 2011.

Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Channah Far-ber, OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anush Yelaghatyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the numerous incidents of harassment and discrimination that Yelaghatyan suffered on account of her Pentecostal religion, even taken cumulatively, did not rise to the level of perse*61cution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that because Yelaghatyan practiced her religion without interference for the most part and because she relocated to her sister’s home without harm prior to leaving Armenia, she did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002) (IJ and BIA entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record to determine whether petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

Because Yelaghatyan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Contrary to Yelaghatyan’s due process contention, the BIA did not err in declining to address her CAT claim in its decision because she made no mention of her CAT claim in her brief to the BIA. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to establish due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                             368
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                       138
<INVENTORY>                                     20,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,338
<PP&E>                                           6,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,261
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,721
<SALES>                                         28,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,436
<CGS>                                           19,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,387
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,603
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,603
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66



</TABLE>
#### Jackson *v.*The State.

Argued May 21,

Decided May 25, 1901.

Indictment for assault with, intent to rape. Before Judge Hart motion for new trial before Judge Brinson. Richmond superior court. March 18, 1901.

*H. Q. Hammond*and *G. M.*Beasley, for plaintiff in error.

*J. 8. Reynolds, solicitor-general,*contra.

IhsH, J.

While the evidence would have warranted a conviction of an assault, it was not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the same was committed with intent to rape.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*