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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2000 (Unaudited) and the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended March
31, 2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          7,048
<SECURITIES>                                    2,290
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                      497
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,366
<PP&E>                                          4,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,054
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           96
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,261
<SALES>                                        22,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,842
<CGS>                                          13,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,881
<INCOME-TAX>                                      869
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,012
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.11



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

March 4, 2016 

Mr. William Irwin, Sc.D., CHP, Chief 

Office of Radiological Health 

Vermont Department of Health 

108 Cherry Street 

P.O. Box 70 

Burlington, VT 05402

Dear Dr. Irwin: 

We have reviewed the revisions to Vermont’s “Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation Control Act” 

contained in Vermont’s Statute Title 18 Chapter 32 received by our office on January 25, 2016. 

The legislation was reviewed by comparison to the criteria in Section 4.1.1 of the Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards procedure SA-700 and Handbook “Processing an 

Agreement.” We discussed our review of the legislation with you on March 1, 2016. 

We appreciate the opportunity to perform an early review of your legislation and while we have 

no comments on the proposed revisions, we offer the following editorial suggestions: 

Regarding the definition of byproduct material, we suggest that you delete the phrase, “including 

discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore 

bodies depleted by these solution extraction operations do not constitute “byproduct material” 

within this definition;” to be consistent with that in section 11.e of the Atomic Energy Act, and to 

avoid future legislation changes in the event that the regulatory definition of byproduct material 

should be revised. In addition, we suggest that you delete the phrase, “Vermont, after 

determination by the United States Regulatory Commission, or any successor thereto”, and 

replace it with, “the governor declares by order to be byproduct material after the United States 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or any successor thereto” in order to specify that the governor 

will issue the order to implement the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s determination 

regarding classifying other radioactive material as byproduct material in the future. 
W. Irwin -2-

If you have any questions please contact Michelle Beardsley at (610) 337-6942 

(Michelle.Beardsley@nrc.gov) or Monica Ford at (610) 337-5214 (Monica.Ford@nrc.gov). 

Sincerely,

/RA/

PHenderson for DCollins

Daniel S. Collins, Director

Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal

 and Rulemaking Programs

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards
Enclosure

STATE REGULATION STATUS

State: Vermont Tracking Ticket Number: 16-39

Date: 03/04/2016

Vermont Submittal Description Incoming 

Letter

Outgoing 

Package

Notes

Proposed Enabling Legislation

Vermont Statute for Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation Control

ML15222A313

8/5/2015

Comments

8/31/2015

ML15222A300

Revised Proposed Enabling Legislation

Vermont Statute for Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation Control

ML16028A214

1/25/2016

No Comments

03/04/2016

ML16028A209
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22778-UU

VICTOR ARIZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AZTECA RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, VICTOR ARIZA and Defendant, AZTECA RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, 

INC., by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby notify the Court that the parties have 

settled all terms material to this action. The Parties are in the process of executing a settlement 

agreement and request that the Court stay all matters and pending deadlines for thirty (30) days in 

order to allow the parties to finalize their written settlement agreement and submit the appropriate 

notices and/or motions to the Court regarding dismissal.

Respectfully submitted this 24th, day of July, 2020.

/s/ Roderick V. Hannah____

Roderick V. Hannah, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 435384

Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A.

Counsel for the Plaintiff

8751 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 303

Plantation, FL 33324

E-Mails: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com and 

kflynn@rhannahlaw.com

/s/ Pelayo M. Duran____

Pelayo M. Duran, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0146595

Law Office of Pelayo Duran, P.A.

Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff

4640 N.W. 7th Street

Miami, FL 33126-2309

E-Mails: duranandassociates@gmail.com

and mperezda@gmail.com

Case 1:20-cv-22778-UU Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

0617-2001617/1883553

/s/ Evelyn Greenstone Kammet

Evelyn Greenstone Kammet, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0044060

Vernis & Bowling of Miami, P.A.

Counsel for the Defendant

1680 N.E. 135th Street

Miami, FL 33181

E-Mails: egreenstone@florida-law.com, 

egkfiling@florida-law.com and 

egutierrez@florida-law.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of July, 2020, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was electronically filed and served via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing 

generated by CM/ECF on all counsel or parties of record.

Vernis & Bowling of Miami, P.A.

1680 N.E. 135th Street

Miami, FL 33181

Tel: 305-895-3035

Fax: 305-892-1260 

By: /s/ Evelyn Greenstone Kammet

Evelyn Greenstone Kammet, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0066040

egreenstone@florida-law.com 

egkfiling@florida-law.com 

Daniel E. Davis, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0116594

ddavis@florida-law.com

rgutierrez@florida-law.com

Case 1:20-cv-22778-UU Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Marie Vogel, Respondent, v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., Appellant. Frank Vogel, Respondent, v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., Appellant.

Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ. [See *post,*p. 872.]
#### In the Matter of the Application of Karl A. McCormick, Proctor of the Bar for the Eighth Judicial District.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 45

**Question 45:** In determining the "eye dose equivalent," can credit be taken for shielding provided by eyeglasses / safety glasses?

**Answer:** Yes.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1201 (a) (i))

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
##### 



FORM 10-Q/A (Amendment
No. 1)
 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20459
 þ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from ___to ___. Commission file number0-20713 ENTREMED, INC.  Delaware
    
    58-1959440(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 9640 Medical Center DriveRockville, Maryland
(Address of principal executive offices) 20850
(Zip code) (240) 864-2600
(Registrants telephone number, including area code) Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES þ NO o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act). YES þ NO o Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as of
the most recent practicable date. Class
    
    Outstanding at May 3, 2005Common Stock $.01 Par Value
    
    49,819,284
 1




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE: This Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 is being filed
solely to correct an error on the cover page of the original Form 10-Q. As reflected on the cover
page of this Amendment No. 1, the check-box should have been checked YES to indicate that the
registrant has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. We have made no further changes to the previously filed Form
10-Q. 2




---



##### 



PART II. OTHER INFORMATION ITEM 6.EXHIBITS Exhibits 31.1 Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer 31.2 Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer 3




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized. ENTREMED, INC.
(Registrant)Date: May 24, 2005
    /s/ Dane R. SaglioDane R. SaglioChief Financial Officer 4
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-83024 and No.333-115771) and Form S-8 (No. 333-53552, No. 333-108178 and No. 333-118010) of Tripath Technology Inc. of our report dated December 17, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/T/A. 

 

/s/    Stonefield Josephson Inc.

 

San Francisco, CA 

July 27, 2005
### [§1963A. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1002(b)(2), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4664]

Section, added Pub. L. 96–417, title V, §511(a), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1743, provided for registration of judgments of the Court of International Trade. See section 1963 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 90 days after Nov. 19, 1988, see section 1002(c) of Pub. L. 100–702, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 1963 of this title.
HomeAbout NRCCareer OpportunitiesWorking at NRCNRC EthicsSummaries of Major Ethics Rules

# Expert Witness

The standards of conduct (5 CFR 2635.805) prohibit employees from serving as expert witnesses, with or without compensation, before a U.S. court or agency for a non-Federal party in a proceeding in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest unless authorized by NRC's General Counsel.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Financial Interests
          - Impartiality
          - Security Ownership Restrictions
          - Gifts
          - Bribery
          - NRC Time and Property
          - NRC Title or Position
          - Nonpublic Information
          - Outside Employment
          - Supplementing Federal Salary
          - Teaching, Speaking, or Writing
          - Fundraising
          - Representations to the Government
          - Job Seeking
          - Post-Employment Restrictions
          - Expert Witness
          - Political Restrictions
          - Procurement Restrictions
          - Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
          - Foreign Governments
          - Financial Disclosure (5 CFR Part 2634)

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 29, 2020
#### Charles F. Albright, Respondent, and Charles R. Albright, Respondent-Appellant, v. Alvin J. Faskel, Appellant-Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *post,*p. 889.]
§ 107.800 Financings in the form of Equity Securities. ( a ) You may purchase the Equity Securities of a Small Business. You may not, inadvertently or otherwise: ( 1 ) Become a general partner in any unincorporated business; or
( 2 ) Become jointly or severally liable for any obligations of an unincorporated business.
( b ) *Definition.* Equity Securities means stock of any class in a corporation, stock options, warrants, limited partnership interests in a limited partnership, membership interests in a limited liability company, or joint venture interests. If the Financing agreement contains debt-type acceleration provisions or includes redemption provisions, other than those permitted under § 107.850, the security will be considered a Debt Security for purposes of § 107.855 and § 107.1150(c)(1).
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 74 FR 33915, July 14, 2009]
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
October 7, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00648

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.A., A CHILD,
From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- PA

- 00285 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
The trial court signed an order terminating appellant’s parental rights on August 22, 2019. Because this is an accelerated appeal , the notice of appeal was due to be filed on September 11, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1( b ). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on September 26, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, she did not file a motion for exte nsion of time. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely
manner. See id. ; T EX

. R

. A PP

. P . 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within fifteen days of the date of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________ Sandee Brya n Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of October, 2019

._________________________________ __ LUZ ESTRADA , Chief Deputy Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30024

In the Matter of: Sharon Sylvester,

Debtor,

Sharon Sylvester, 

Appellant,

versus

Barbara Rivera-Fulton, 

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:20-CV-1083

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sharon Sylvester went bankrupt. At the end of her Chapter 7 

proceeding, the bankruptcy court ordered her to pay certain fees to the

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30024 Document: 00516377878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 22-30024

2

trustee and a law firm that assisted the trustee. The present appeal involves 

the bankruptcy court’s award of fees to the trustee.

In affirming the award of fees to the trustee, the district court 

principally relied on its prior opinion awarding fees to the law firm. In re 

Sylvester, No. 20-CV-2469, 2021 WL 807248 (E.D. La. Mar. 2, 2021). The 

next month, however, we vacated and remanded the award of attorney’sfees, 

concluding that the bankruptcy court applied the wrong legal standard. See 

Matter of Sylvester, 23 F.4th 543 (5th Cir. 2022). Because the questions 

regarding fees in both matters are intertwined, we VACATE and 

REMAND for further proceedings consistent our recent decision. 

Case: 22-30024 Document: 00516377878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo TORRES-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40896.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfredo Torres-Gonzalez (Torres) pleaded guilty to one count of reentering the United States without permission after having been deported. Torres contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), under which he was convicted, is unconstitutional. The Government contends that Torres waived his right to appeal. We need not decide the applicability of the waivers in this case because the issue that Torres raises is foreclosed.

Torres’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Torres contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi*v. *New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garzo-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Torres properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Document

Exhibit 10.1



PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION 
2021 FISCAL YEAR COMPENSATION PROGRAM  
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


A.Amounts of 2021 Fiscal Year Compensation
									
	•	Annual Board Retainer (cash):
	$50,000

			
	•	Additional Annual Non-Executive Chairman Retainer (cash):
	$75,000

			
	•	Committee fees (cash):
	
			
		Audit Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

			$20,000 for Members

			
		Nominating and Corporate 
Governance Committee:	$12,500 for Chair 

			$10,000 for Members

			
		Compensation Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

			$15,000 for Members

			
		M&A Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

			$15,000 for Members



Equity Component:
•$225,000 to be delivered in one installment (as set forth below under “Timing”), consisting of Deferred Stock Units (“DSUs”).  


•The number of DSUs to be issued will be determined by dividing $225,000 by the fair market value of Company common stock on the date of issuance.  The DSUs will vest in a single installment on the date of the 2022 Annual Meeting, subject to continued service on the Board thru such date, with full acceleration upon a change in control. 


•DSUs will accrue dividends on the same basis as Company common stock and will be reinvested in additional DSUs.


•DSUs, together with dividends credited on those DSUs, will be settled upon a Director’s separation from service from the Board of Directors or change in control, if earlier, and not upon vesting.  At such time, DSUs will be paid out in the form of Company common stock.  










Timing
•Annual fiscal year cash compensation will be paid in one installment at the Compensation Committee meeting in June or, promptly following the date of the 2021 Annual Meeting, whichever is earlier, or such other date as determined by the Compensation Committee.  


•Amounts paid will be pro-rated for partial year service, with a fractional month of service rounded to a whole month.  A Director who joins the Board other than on the first day of the fiscal year will be paid a pro-rated amount of the annual fiscal year compensation.  The same proration rule will also apply to any partial year service on any committee.


B.    Stock Retention Guidelines
All non-employee Directors must hold a number of shares of the Corporation’s common stock having a fair market value equal to at least five times the Annual Cash Retainer, which for purposes of this requirement shall include vested DSUs.  Directors have five years to attain this guideline from the date of election to the Board.


C.    Miscellaneous
Employee Directors shall not be entitled to participate in the 2021 Director Compensation Plan.