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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                            112
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                      235
<INVENTORY>                                    15,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,001
<PP&E>                                          5,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,029
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           39
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,715
<SALES>                                        32,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               32,730
<CGS>                                          22,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,387<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,064
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .52
<FN>
<F1>
Includes other income of 350,000 from gain on sale of equipment
</FN> 
        


</TABLE>
J-S92029-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE MATTER OF: S.L.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: C.W., NATURAL FATHER

No. 1082 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Decree June 10, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 63 in Adoption 2014

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MOULTON, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MOULTON, J.: FILED JANUARY 4, 2017

C.W. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered on June 10, 2016, in 

the Erie County Court of Common Pleas terminating his parental rights to his 

minor child, S.L.W. (“Child”), born in June 2014. We remand this matter to 

the orphans’ court for the preparation of an opinion pursuant Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).

On June 10, 2016, the trial court entered a decree terminating Father’s 

parental rights. On July 7, 2016, Father’s counsel filed a timely appeal and a 

statement of intention to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S92029-16

- 2 -

U.S. 738 (1967).1 See In the Interest of J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 772 

(Pa.Super. 2009) (applying Anders procedure and Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4)2to 

appeals involving termination of parental rights). On September 27, 2016, 

counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw as counsel.

By letter dated August 1, 2016, the orphans’ court informed this Court 

that it would not be submitting an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) because 

counsel filed a statement of intent to file an Anders brief. Letter, 8/1/16. 

We caution that the filing of a statement of intent to withdraw as counsel 

pursuant to Anders and Rule 1925(c)(4) does not relieve the orphans’ court

of its duty to provide the rationale for its decision under Rule 1925(a)(2).

Due to the permanency of an order involuntarily terminating parental 

rights, and because the orphans’ court’s rationale for termination under 23 

Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b) is cursory in the notes of testimony,3 we are 

constrained to remand for a thorough opinion. Accordingly, we remand this 

case and direct the orphans’ court to file a Rule 1925(a) opinion containing 

____________________________________________

1 Anders sets forth the requirements for counsel to withdraw from 

representation on direct appeal. See also Commonwealth v. Santiago, 

978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

2 Rule 1925(c)(4) provides: “In a criminal case, counsel may file of 

record and serve on the judge a statement of intent to file an 

Anders/McClendon brief in lieu of filing a Statement.”

3

 N.T., 6/10/16, at 55-56. 
J-S92029-16

- 3 -

detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than thirty days from 

the date of this Judgment Order.

Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.4

____________________________________________

4

Father has not filed a pro se response to the application to withdraw 

as counsel. We will address counsel’s petition to withdraw after remand. 

Emily Merski, Esquire remains Father’s counsel of record.
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  J ACOBY L EE F ELIX , No. 02-16614

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 

#  CV-98-00828-WBS D ENEICE A. M AYLE , Warden, ORDER

Respondent-Appellee. 

# 

Filed August 18, 2005

Before: William C. Canby, Jr., William A. Fletcher, and

Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The original decision entered by this court in this matter, reported at 379 F.3d 612, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Mayle v. Felix , 125 S. Ct. 2562 (2005). In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, the judgment of the district court entered on July 1, 2002, is in all respects

AFFIRMED.

10893PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                     THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

         THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this "AMENDMENT") is
made this 1st day of December, 1998, by and among ATLANTIC PREMIUM BRANDS, LTD.,
a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), STERLING ADVISORS, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership ("STERLING") and ELFMAN VENTURE PARTNERS, INC., an Illinois
corporation ("EVP"). Sterling and EVP are hereinafter referred to together as
the "MANAGERS".

         WHEREAS, effective as of March 15, 1996, the Company and the Managers
entered into a Consulting Agreement, amended as of October 16, 1996 and as of
July 1, 1997 (as amended, the "AGREEMENT") which provided for the Managers
rendering consulting services to the Company in consideration for payment of
fees and other consideration therefore, all on terms more specifically
enumerated in the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Managers have agreed to amend the
Agreement as set forth herein, all according to the terms and conditions set
forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:

         1. Amendment. The parties acknowledge that the Managers have and will
spend substantial amounts of time in assisting the Company in the disposition of
certain assets of the Company's Beverage Division. In consideration of such
efforts, upon the consummation of such disposition, there shall be due and owing
from the Company to the Managers an aggregate of $260,000.00. Such amounts shall
be paid in lieu of all other fees payable under the Agreement (which will not
include reimbursement of expenses) which would otherwise be due and payable
during the time period beginning January 1, 1999 through and including July 15,
1999.

         2. Continued Effectiveness of Agreement. Except as expressly amended
hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.








                                  (end of text)
                         ******************************


<PAGE>   2



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the day and year first written above.

STERLING ADVISORS, L.P.
  By Sterling Group, Inc.




By /s/ Steven M. Taslitz
   ---------------------------------------
   Steven M. Taslitz, President

ELFMAN VENTURE PARTNERS, INC.




By /s/ Merrick M. Elfman
   ---------------------------------------
   Merrick M. Elfman, President

ATLANTIC PREMIUM BRANDS, LTD.




By /s/ Alan F. Sussna 
   ---------------------------------------
   Alan F. Sussna, Chief Executive Officer


                                      -2-
2009-1611.

#### State v. Barnes.

Clermont App. No. CA2008-10-090, 2009-Ohio-3684. On motion to stay execution of sentence pending appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Cupp, J., dissent.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

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.

 May 2 

8, 2021

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2021

162944(39)

CINDY BRAXTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 162944

v COA: 351397

Oakland CC: 2018-168673-NO

BEAUMONT HEALTH TROY, WILLIAM 

BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, and SARA A. 

MOOSA,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before June 17, 2021.
**Exhibit 31(b)****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**     I, Herman F. Dick, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Core Molding Technologies, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 14, 2006       /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr. Herman F. Dick, Jr.    Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer  
27
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5349]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2932]

S. D. Warren Company; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

February 28, 2001.
    On January 22, 1999, S. D. Warren Company, licensee for the 
Mallison Falls Project No. 2932, filed an application for a new or 
subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the 
Commission's regulations thereunder. Project No. 2932 is located on the 
Presumpscot River in Cumberland County, Maine.
    The license for Project No. 2932 was issued for a period ending 
January 26, 2001. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions and of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2932 is issued to 
S. D. Warren Company for a period effective January 27, 2001, through 
January 26, 2002, or until the issuance of a new license for the 
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If 
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on 
or before January 27, 2002, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that S. D. Warren Company is authorized to continue 
operation of the Mallison Falls Project No. 2932 until such time as the 
Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5349 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2893 

To provide for prompt payments to small business contractors, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2018 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for prompt payments to small business 

contractors, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROMPT PAYMENTS OF SMALL BUSINESS CON4 TRACTORS. 

5 Section 2307(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 

8 subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2893 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘The head of any agency may— 

2 ’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) The head of any agency may’’; 

3 and 

4 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(2)(A) For a prime contractor (as defined in section 

7 8701 of title 41) that is a small business concern (as de8 fined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 632)), the head of an agency shall, to the fullest extent 

10 permitted by law, establish an accelerated payment date 

11 with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice 

12 for the amount due if a specific payment date is not estab13 lished by contract. 

14 ‘‘(B) For a prime contractor that subcontracts with 

15 a small business concern, the head of an agency shall, to 

16 the fullest extent permitted by law, establish an acceler17 ated payment date with a goal of 15 days after receipt 

18 of a proper invoice for the amount due if— 

19 ‘‘(i) a specific payment date is not established 

20 by contract; and 

21 ‘‘(ii) the prime contractor agrees to make pay22 ments to the subcontractor in accordance with the 

23 accelerated payment date, to the maximum extent 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2893 IS

1 practicable, without any further consideration from 

2 or fees charged to the subcontractor.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Country Net Weight 

Presented Percentage Cumulative

CANADA 1,721,893,329 42.18% 42.18%

AUSTRALIA 768,489,691 18.82% 61.00%

NEW ZEALAND 509,201,868 12.47% 73.48%

MEXICO 433,943,818 10.63% 84.10%

CHILE 100,742,674 2.47% 86.57%

POLAND 93,739,500 2.30% 88.87%

URUGUAY 91,430,167 2.24% 91.11%

NICARAGUA 87,626,731 2.15% 93.25%

BRAZIL 80,103,484 1.96% 95.22%

DENMARK 75,083,269 1.84% 97.06%

COSTA RICA 20,895,756 0.51% 97.57%

NETHERLANDS 18,976,806 0.46% 98.03%

ITALY 18,771,818 0.46% 98.49%

IRELAND 18,304,349 0.45% 98.94%

UNITED KINGDOM 13,573,567 0.33% 99.27%

SPAIN 13,484,987 0.33% 99.60%

NORTHERN IRELAND 4,745,422 0.12% 99.72%

ISRAEL 2,762,883 0.07% 99.79%

GERMANY 2,712,445 0.07% 99.85%

VIETNAM 1,178,033 0.03% 99.88%

FINLAND 1,158,292 0.03% 99.91%

KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 1,069,576 0.03% 99.94%

HUNGARY 669,829 0.02% 99.95%

JAPAN 534,627 0.01% 99.97%

ICELAND 398,503 0.01% 99.98%

CROATIA 294,427 0.01% 99.98%

CHINA 277,122 0.01% 99.99%

FRANCE 126,522 0.00% 99.99%

LITHUANIA 105,235 0.00% 100.00%

AUSTRIA 38,535 0.00% 100.00%

THAILAND 32,214 0.00% 100.00%

SAN MARINO 28,464 0.00% 100.00%

MYANMAR 23,085 0.00% 100.00%

BANGLADESH 13,597 0.00% 100.00%

GUYANA 916 0.00% 100.00%

Total Presented 4,082,431,541 100.00%

United Kingdom includes England, Scotland and Wales - which are under one inspection system.

Northern Ireland is under a separate inspection system and is listed seperately.

Egg product includes shell eggs.

These data are for meat and poultry imports. 

Egg product imports in 2016= 19,518,247 pounds. 

All egg product imports were from Canada and 

Netherlands.

Office of Field Operations 

Import Inspection Operations 

Food Safety and Inspection Service

2016 Import Data
#### In the Matter of Alexander B., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[5 NYS3d 423]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J., at fact-finding proceeding; Sidney Gribetz, J., at disposition), entered on or about January 22, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 15 months, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed.

*534Appellant’s admission was defective because there is no indication in the record that a “reasonable and substantial effort,” or any effort for that matter, was made to notify his mother of the fact-finding proceeding at which the admission was made *(see*Family Ct Act § 341.2 [3]; *Matter of Myacutta A.,*75 AD2d 774 [1st Dept 1980]). Although appellant’s mother had a history of absence, there is nothing to show that she was notified of the court appearance at issue, which occurred the day after appellant was returned on a warrant. Although, for reasons not appearing in the record, appellant’s uncle was present, this was insufficient, as nothing indicates that he was “[a] person legally responsible for [the child’s] care” (Family Ct Act § 321.3 [1]), or that he was an acceptable substitute. Even if the uncle’s presence did satisfy the statutory criteria, the court failed to obtain a proper allocution from him with regard to his understanding of the rights appellant was waiving as a result of his admission. As the statutory requirements are non waivable, preservation was not required *(Matter of Aaron B.,*74 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2010]).

Since appellant has already served the 15 months of probation imposed by the court, the proper remedy is to dismiss the petition *(see Matter of Jerome P.,*96 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
2009-1690.

#### [State ex rel.] Newsome v. Allen.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AESP. Inc.(the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Roy
Rafalco, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



                                       /s/ Roy Rafalco
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Roy Rafalco
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       August 14, 2002