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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DCH TECHNOLOGY AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          39,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  143,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               396,220
<PP&E>                                         124,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 896,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          570,182
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       158,779
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,153,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   896,970
<SALES>                                        218,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,811
<CGS>                                           48,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  933,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (763,593)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (763,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (763,593)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
# C_2006281EN.01005001.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/50

---

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v Commission

(Case F-114/06)

(2006/C 281/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicant's name, and also, by way of an incidental measure, the preparatory measures for those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicant's name, and also, by way of an incidental measure, the preparatory measures for those decisions;

| — | in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points in the abovementioned promotion procedure, in particular, following the recommendations of the Promotion Committees; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points in the abovementioned promotion procedure, in particular, following the recommendations of the Promotion Committees;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven following pleas in law:

| — | first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | second, infringement of the general implementing provisions for that article; |
| --- | --- |

—

second, infringement of the general implementing provisions for that article;

| — | third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, and a manifest error of assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, and a manifest error of assessment;

| — | fourth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringement of the duty to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

fourth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringement of the duty to state reasons;

| — | fifth, infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made); |
| --- | --- |

—

fifth, infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

| — | seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

—

seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 149

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that ‘‘Sugar’’ Ray

Robinson should be recognized for his athletic achievements and commitment to young people.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 1999

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

‘‘Sugar’’ Ray Robinson should be recognized for his athletic achievements and commitment to young people.

Whereas ‘‘Sugar’’ Ray Robinson was born in Detroit, Michigan, on May 3, 1920;

Whereas in 1932 he moved to New York City where he started boxing as an amateur, going undefeated in 89 bouts,

and winning the Golden Gloves featherweight title in

1939:

Whereas in 1940 he turned professional and fought at New

York City’s Madison Square Garden for the first time;

Whereas in 1946 he won his first world title as a

welterweight, and then held the middleweight title for 5

years between 1951 and 1960;
2

HRES 149 IH

Whereas after retiring for a time he returned to box a series

of exciting matches before permanently retiring on December 10, 1965;

Whereas in a career spanning 25 years, he won 175 of 202

bouts with 109 knockouts;

Whereas his grace, speed, power, and mastery of the ring

earned him international acclaim as one of the greatest

fighters in boxing history;

Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson was elected into the Boxing

Hall of Fame in 1967;

Whereas in 1969 he established the Sugar Ray Robinson

Youth Foundation; and

Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson died in Culver City, California,

on April 12, 1989, at the age of 68: Now, therefore be

it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that Sugar Ray Robinson should be recog3 nized as one of history’s greatest professional fighters,

4 whose dedication to boxing and commitment to young peo5 ple have earned him a permanent place in sports history.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 9, 2009 

1215 

Order 

 

January 9, 2009 

137437 

RAQUEL RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE, 

 Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137437 

 COA: 285437 

Wayne CC: 02-231906-CZ 

A.S.E. INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff, 

and 

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING 

HOLDINGS, INC., and AMERICAN AXLE & 

MANUFACTURING, INC., 

 Defendants, Cross-Defendants, 

and 

DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., INNOVATIVE 

ENGINEERING, INC., and PMI 

MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2008 

judgment 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. 

 HATHAWAY, J., not participating.
(logo) Grant Thornton

 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

| Grant Thornton LLP

1717 Main Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, TX 75201-4667

 

T 214.561.2300

F 214.561.2370

GrantThornton.com

linkd.in/Grant/ThorntonUS

twitter.com/GrantThorntonUS |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Situs Holdings LLC  

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Assertion”), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the “Company”) complied with servicing criteria set forth in 1117, 1119, and Items 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB included in Appendix A as of December 31, 2014 and for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, with respect to the Company’s Operating or Trust Advisor Services performed over the deals listed in Appendix B (the “Platform”).  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.  

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board  (United  States)  and,  accordingly,  included  examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  the  Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Services and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’s activities with respect to the Platform during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of December 31, 2014 and for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, for the Services is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

 

Dallas, Texas

February 27, 2015

 

 

Grant Thornton LLP

U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.108


March 7, 2008

Thomas M. Costello, Jr.
Compuware Corporation
One Campus Martius
Detroit, MI 48226

Dear Tom:

In consideration of your years of service to Compuware and for your continued
service to Compuware as an employee in a consulting role, the Company makes the
following offer to you:

    1. You will be paid your current net salary through March 31, 2008;

    2. Your Medical, Vision, Dental, and Life Insurance coverage will cease as
       of 12:01 a.m., March 10, 2008. All other Compuware benefits will cease as
       of 12:01 a.m., March 8, 2008. Under Federal Law (COBRA), you have the
       right to continue your group health insurance at your own expense. A
       notice outlining your COBRA rights will be mailed to your home. In
       addition, you have the right to convert your group life insurance to an
       individual policy at your own expense. You will receive life insurance
       conversion information from our insurance carrier via U.S. mail. To
       exercise this right, you must do so within thirty-one (31) days from your
       life insurance termination date of March 10, 2008.

    3. Effective April 1, 2008, you will be paid a gross annual salary of
       $50,000 for four years unless terminated earlier by Compuware at its sole
       discretion;

    4. You will receive your Long-Term Incentive Cash Award for FY '06 paid in
       accordance with the terms of the Executive Incentive Plan. You will not
       be entitled to any other payments under any Executive Incentive Plan; and

    5. All of your unvested stock options will continue to vest pursuant to the
       vesting periods set forth in the applicable Stock Option Agreements.
       Vested stock options must be exercised by you no later than the relevant
       expiration date set forth in the applicable Stock Option Agreements.

    6. Your company-issued laptop computer will now become your property.

With the exception of #6 above, Compuware reserves the right to terminate this
agreement at any time without prior notice for any reason.

Sincerely,

/s/  Peter Karmanos, Jr.
------------------------
Peter Karmanos, Jr.
Chairman and CEO

I agree and accept the terms of this letter agreement:

By:    /s/  Thomas M. Costello, Jr.            Date:    March 7, 2008
      -----------------------------                     -------------
            Thomas M. Costello, Jr.
Exhibit 31.2  IDEAEDGE, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jonathan Shultz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of IdeaEdge, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(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 consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) [Paragraph omitted]; (c) 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 (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date: May 8, 2009/s/ Jonathan ShultzJonathan ShultzChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-105 

December 31, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 3(2) Definitions. Pension Plan

4001(b) Definitions. Employer and Controlled Group 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of November 26, 1975. As we understand the facts, "C" has a "Plan" covering its

employees and those of its wholly-owned subsidiary, "C-1." Both "C" and "C-1" are discontinuing contributions and

accruals on behalf of all participants. The contributions made by "C" and "C-1" are separately accounted and these

accounts are the sole source of benefits for participants. That is, participants of "C" look only to "C's" account for

benefits and vice versa. 

This arrangement, in our view, constitutes two plans. Section 4001(b) of the Act applies to the extent that "C" and

"C-1" are treated as the employer which, in this case, maintains two plans. That statutory provision defines an employer

for purposes of Title IV of the Act; it does not define a plan. 

We hope this is of assistance. At your request, we will be happy to further discuss this matter. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-7 

May 9, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 208 Mergers, Consolidations and other Transfers of Plan Assets

1015(l). (IRC § 414) Definitions and Special Rules. Mergers, Consolidations and Other Transfers of Plan Assets

4043(b)(8) Reportable Events. Mergers, Consolidations & other Transfers of Plan Assets 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter to us concerning the merger of the * * * and * * * into the * * * This will also serve

to confirm your recent telephone conversation with * * * of our office. 

The merger of a single employer plan into a multiemployer plan does not require the approval of the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"), though it is a reportable event under Section 4043(b)(8) of the Act. It is so, as you

have been informed, that it is the position of the PBGC that until the PBGC issues regulations relating to Section 208

and Section 1015 of the Act, the constraints of those sections do not apply to the merger of a single employer plan into

a multiemployer plan. 

However, I call your attention to the fact that Section 208 is in Title I of the Act, which is the responsibility of the

Department of Labor to administer and its counterpart, Section 1015, is in Title II of the Act, which is the responsibility

[*2] of the Internal Revenue Service to administer. Accordingly, any doubts you may hve relating to their portions of

the Act should be addressed to them. 

Your letter states that the * * * Fund is sponsored by the * * *, is a multiemployer plan to which the Act refers in

Section 208 and is contemplating a merger with the * * * Pension Fund. As you can see from the above, that merger may

may be accomplished without regard to the substantive limitation contained in Section 208. You have the obligation,

however, to notify this Corporation of the merger within 30 days after it has occurred. See Section 4043(b)(8) of the

Act. 

We trust this answers your inquiry. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### Organization of Federal Land Banks
### §8902. Appointment and enlistment in reserve components

In the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, any member of the Naval Militia may be appointed or enlisted in the Navy Reserve or the Marine Corps Reserve in the grade for which he is qualified.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 486, §7852; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, §515(b)(1)(W), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3233; renumbered §8902, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(11), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7852 | 50 U.S.C. 1072. | July 9, 1952, ch. 608, §502, 66 Stat. 500. |

This section is written to indicate that the Secretary of the Navy has discretion in authorizing the appointment or enlistment in the Naval Reserve of members of the Naval Militia but does not make such appointments or enlistments. Section 593 of this title, based on 50 U.S.C. 942, 943, provides the manner in which all reserve appointments are made, and §510 of this title, based on 50 U.S.C. 941, 952, 956 provides the authority to enlist persons in the reserve components. As worded, this section removes the conflicting statement of appointing authority, and allows appointments and enlistments to be controlled by these other provisions. The words "rank" and "or rating" are omitted as covered by the word "grade".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7852 of this title as this section.

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 substituted "Navy Reserve" for "Naval Reserve".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:52 PM 

To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda 

Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; 

Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily 

Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, 

Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna 

Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew 

Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; 

Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick 

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom 

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Breakfast read? 

Dear Colleagues, 

You didn't really want to read about the Redskins did you? (And we can stipulate that Pakistan 

still hates us.) 

Attached for your breakfast perusal (should you so choose) are two memos prepared by LBNL 

staff that hopefully will shed light on two conceptual issues that have vexed our prior discussions 

of what really matters, transformers: 

(a) the Department's methodology for constructing the LCC and how it relates to the dollars per 

watt metric that many of you are familiar with, and 

(b) the Department's assumptions about loading and load growth and how it is used in the 

analysis. 

Thanks to Mike Hyland's incredible hospitality there will have copies available for you to look at 

at this meeting, but do try to peek at them in advance. We will try to work through these issues 

quickly, but thoroughly. 

All best, 

Richard Parker