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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,608,792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  206,388
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                    109,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,707,814
<PP&E>                                       2,617,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 760,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,820,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,998,968
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 19,524,451         
<COMMON>                                        62,606
<OTHER-SE>                                   (405,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,820,030
<SALES>                                      6,867,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,867,680
<CGS>                                        1,846,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,846,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               159,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,772,759)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,772,759)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.61)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1000.301 What is the purpose of the IHBG formula?

The IHBG formula is used to allocate equitably and fairly funds made available through NAHASDA among eligible Indian tribes. A TDHE may be a recipient on behalf of an Indian tribe.
Agreement, dated August 6, 2010



  
 Exhibit 10.21


 

 

 M E M O R A N D U M 
  


			
	 TO:
  

FROM:
  
 DATE:
  

SUBJECT:
	  	 Rich Roeske
  
 Don Southwell    /s/ DS
  
 August 5, 2010
  
 Special
Incentive Bonus


  
  

The purpose of the Special Incentive Bonus is to recognize the increased responsibilities you will temporarily assume during an important transitional
period for the organization. If you stay with Unitrin Services Company and continue to satisfactorily perform your job through March 15, 2011, you will be eligible to receive a 25% bonus based upon your base annual salary as of
April 1, 2010. 
 If your employment with Unitrin Services Company should end prior to March 15, 2011 due to your voluntary
resignation or termination for cause, you will not be entitled to the bonus award or any portion thereof. 
 The bonus will be paid as a lump
sum payroll item by March 15, 2011. 
 This is considered a confidential matter and is not to be discussed with your Unitrin colleagues.

 I want to personally thank you for your hard work thus far and ask for your continued support going forward. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 Employee
Signature    /s/ R. Roeske 
 Date    8/6/10 

Unitrin, Inc. 
 One East Wacker Drive • Chicago, Illinois 60601 • 312.661-4600
### §300b–7. Tourette Syndrome

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall develop and implement outreach programs to educate the public, health care providers, educators and community based organizations about the etiology, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of Tourette Syndrome, with a particular emphasis on children with Tourette Syndrome. Such programs may be carried out by the Secretary directly and through awards of grants or contracts to public or nonprofit private entities.

#### (b) Certain activities

Activities under subsection (a) shall include—

(1) the production and translation of educational materials, including public service announcements;

(2) the development of training material for health care providers, educators and community based organizations; and

(3) outreach efforts directed at the misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of Tourette Syndrome in children and in minority groups.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XI, §1108, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title XXIII, §2301, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1157.)
§ 521.28 Motions. ( a ) Any application to the ALJ for an order or ruling shall be by motion. Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions shall be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) Within 15 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
( d ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses thereto has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
( e ) The ALJ shall make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
!"#$ 

%$#&%"$	# '()

*"#	"" $#%$&"		+

+"#	""#%$&"	
,-./0
0

1.2/3,4//
1.5626/5/761814 

/6,1600 

3

9:!"		#$#$&"#	;

9#9#+!"		#$#$&"#	;

:	!""#%	) 

+0,4,1







	

	










	

 	





	



	


&.
851.36,<54,4536=41.>516?16>8/16
,,4@5
>
4A$3645156/

B.48/6,<#54558/0
//
=C

 /6,1600?%
16
,0
5/51606B16
,>858,11
!45/$8/
0636/5
B485

.//-06/4-7!-5857 ;

 +0,4,1?#>>
616
,1
/51606B16
,.//-06/4-7>56/ ;

 /6,1600?$>/76,!851.58>>
51
0/51606B16
,.//-06/4-7'8,%7

 ;,4

 &..56,<
,/6,1600?%
16
,0
5/51606B16
,.//-B
,48B14
,'8,

 

*61.6, 0601,DE47
0 58/6,< -71.
8515<546,</6,1600?%
16
, 0
5/

51606B16
, 1. >516 .//21 ,4 B
,05 ,4 F
6,1/7 8-2611
1.
851  118 5>
51

5<546,<1.65>/,0
5>516B6>16
,6,
8512,414+$>5
<52&.1185>
51=6//

/
 445 ,7 
1.5 
811,46,< 68 6,B/846,< .
=28B.  60 ,7  44616
,/ 46B
357 6

5G8654





	
	

+&+CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

9
,
5-/28/
,16

,61411+6156B1'84<

June 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

1/5/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 99 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
exv10w5







	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.5




EXECUTION COPY




AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO




CONSULTING AGREEMENT




     This AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective
as of September 30, 2010, by VCA Antech, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Tomas
Fuller, an individual (“Executive”).



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement, dated as
of June 28, 2010 (the “Consulting Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Consulting Agreement as provided for
herein.



AMENDMENT




     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the terms, covenants and
conditions contained herein, the parties hereto amend the Consulting Agreement as follows:



     1. Consulting Services. Section 1 of the Consulting Agreement shall be amended and
restated to read in full as follows:




	 	“1. 	 	 Following the effectiveness of Consultant’s resignation as Chief Financial
Officer, Vice President and Secretary on or after January 1, 2013 other than for Good
Reason, following a Change in Control or resulting from Consultant’s Disability, but
only if the Company and Executive mutually agree to make this Agreement effective (a
“Qualifying Voluntary Termination”), Consultant will provide business consulting and
advice to the Company as described herein.”





     2. Survival. Except as expressly amended as provided for in Section 1 above, all of
the terms, conditions and covenants contained in the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect without amendment or modification as provided for therein.



     3. Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which will be considered to be an original, and all such executed counterparts will together
constitute one document. The provisions of this Amendment are severable, and if any one or more
provisions are determined to be judicially unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining
provisions will nevertheless be binding and enforceable. This Amendment shall be governed by the
laws of the State of California.



Signature page follows






 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has signed this Amendment on the date opposite their
signature below.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	VCA ANTECH, INC.

 	 
	Date: September 30, 2010	By:  	/s/ Robert L. Antin	 
	 	 	Its: 	Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE

 	 
	Date: September 30, 2010 	/s/ TOM FULLER
 	 
	 	Tom Fuller 	 




2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

CR No. 09-1193 MHP 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

ACADIA SENESE (CABN 251287)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone:(415) 436-6809

Fax: (415) 436-7234

Email: acadia.senese@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DANIEL A. PESCE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR No. 09-1193 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM APRIL 19,

2010 TO MAY 17, 2010

On April 19, 2010, the parties in this case appeared before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel

for a status appearance. At that time, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the

Speedy Trial Act calculation from April 19, 2010 to May 17, 2010 for effective preparation of

defense counsel. The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable

time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of

due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 

The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance 

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cr-01193-MHP Document 38 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

CR No. 09-1193 MHP 2

outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

DATED: 5/17/10 ______/s/___________________

ACADIA SENESE

Special Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 5/17/10 ______/s/______________________

ELIZABETH FALK

Attorney for Daniel A. Pesce

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from April 19,

2010 to May 17, 2010, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ ________________________________________

THE HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Court Judge 

5/24/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01193-MHP Document 38 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 96.79 Administrative or judicial review of adverse action by the accrediting entity. ( a ) Except to the extent provided by the procedures in § 96.78, an adverse action by an accrediting entity shall not be subject to administrative review.
( b ) Section 202(c)(3) of the IAA (42 U.S.C. 14922(c)(3)) provides for judicial review in Federal court of adverse actions by an accrediting entity, regardless of whether the entity is described in § 96.5(a) or (b). When any petition brought under section 202(c)(3) raises as an issue whether the deficiencies necessitating the adverse action have been corrected, the procedures maintained by the accrediting entity pursuant to § 96.78 must first be exhausted. Adverse actions are only those actions listed in § 96.75. There is no judicial review of an accrediting entity's decision to deny accreditation or approval, including: ( 1 ) A denial of an initial application;
( 2 ) A denial of an application made after cancellation or refusal to renew by the accrediting entity; and
( 3 ) A denial of an application made after cancellation or debarment by the Secretary.
( c ) In accordance with section 202(c)(3) of the IAA (42 U.S.C. 14922(c)(3)), an accredited agency or approved person that is the subject of an adverse action by an accrediting entity may petition the United States district court in the judicial district in which the agency is located or the person resides to set aside the adverse action imposed by the accrediting entity. The United States district court shall review the adverse action in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 706. When an accredited agency or approved person petitions a United States district court to review the adverse action of an accrediting entity, the accrediting entity will be considered an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 701 for the purpose of judicial review of the adverse action.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Allah BURMAN, a/k/a A, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-4596.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2007.

Decided: May 8, 2007.

Andrew H. Baida, Rosenberg/Martin/Greenberg, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Allah Burman appeals his sentence imposed following this court’s remand for resentencing. See *United States v. Burman,*151 Fed.Appx. 260 (4th Cir.2005) (unpublished). Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Burman initially contends that the presumption of reasonableness *199this court affords post *-Booker*
      ***
      **sentences imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines range is unconstitutional. This court’s precedent, however, forecloses this argument. *See, e.g., United States v. Montes-Pineda,*445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.2006), *petition for cert. filed,*— U.S.L.W. — (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439); *United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir.2006); *United States v. Moreland,*437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 2054, 164 L.Ed.2d 804 (2006); *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006). Because one panel of this court cannot overrule another, we decline Burman’s invitation to ignore established circuit authority. *See United States v. Chong,*285 F.3d 343, 346-47 (4th Cir.2002).

Burman also contends that the district court erred by sentencing him on facts that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, after *Booker,*sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the Guidelines range prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). This court has previously noted that sentencing factors should continue to be evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. *United States v. Morris,*429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir.2005). Thus, we conclude the district court’s use of a preponderance of the evidence standard was proper in Burman’s post *-Booker*resen-tencing.

Accordingly, we deny Burman’s motion for hearing and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
§ 1000.62 What is considered program income? ( a ) Program income is defined as any income that is realized from the disbursement of grant amounts. Program income does not include any amounts generated from the operation of 1937 Act units unless the units are assisted with grant amounts and the income is attributable to such assistance. Program income includes income from fees for services performed from the use of real or rental of real or personal property acquired with grant funds, from the sale of commodities or items developed, acquired, etc. with grant funds, and from payments of principal and interest earned on grant funds prior to disbursement.
( b ) If the amount of income received in a single year by a recipient and all its subrecipients, which would otherwise be considered program income, does not exceed $25,000, such funds may be retained but will not be considered to be or treated as program income.
( c ) If program income is realized from an eligible activity funded with both grant funds as well as other funds (i.e., funds that are not grant funds), then the amount of program income realized will be based on a percentage calculation that represents the proportional share of funds provided for the activity generating the program income.
( d ) Costs incident to the generation of program income shall be deducted from gross income to determine program income.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 71524, Dec. 3, 2012]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28125]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
26, 2005.
    Title and OMB number: Defense Logistics Agency Readership Survey 
for Loglines Magazine; OMB Control Number 0704-TBD.
    Type of request: New.
    Number of respondents: 4,200.
    Responses per respondent: 1.
    Annual responses: 4,200.
    Average burden per response: 10 minutes.
    Annual burden hours: 546.
    Needs and uses: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is evaluating 
its public affairs practices to include requesting feedback from 
readers of its publications. DLA needs to learn how we can better serve 
our readers and how we are already succeeding. The survey information 
will be used by DLA to help us improve the customer focus of our 
publications.
    Affected public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-
profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, 
or tribal government.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB desk officer: Mr. Lewis Oleinick.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD clearance officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-28125 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1087

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Roberto Arreguin-Rivera, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: July 16, 2002

 Filed: July 23, 2002

___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Arreguin-Rivera (Arreguin-Rivera) was arrested after police found a

large amount of methamphetamine in hidden compartments in a car in which he was

a passenger. He pled guilty to conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute,

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. The district court1

sentenced Arreguin-Rivera to 97 months imprisonment, based on a Guidelines range

of 97-121 months, and 5 years supervised release. Arreguin-Rivera appeals, and we

affirm. After reviewing the record for plain error, we find no plain error.
-2-

In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), ArreguinRivera’s counsel concedes Arreguin-Rivera’s sentence is not subject to review, if

within a properly calculated Guidelines range and not otherwise in violation of law.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir.

1992) (per curiam). We agree. Arreguin-Rivera's sentence is within a properly

calculated range and no violations of law exist.

Having independently reviewed the entire record in accordance with Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no plain error affecting Arreguin-Rivera’s

substantial rights. See United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002) (standard

of review). We do note two issues which warrant comment.

First, Arreguin-Rivera received a role in the offense sentencing adjustment

based on the plea agreement, which stipulated he was a "minor participant." See

United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) ("A defendant who

explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge

that punishment on appeal."). Although Arreguin-Rivera argued at the plea hearing

and on appeal that his involvement was virtually non-existent, the district court did

not err in relying on the plea agreement stipulation.

Second, the plea agreement and the statements made at the plea hearing were

sufficient to form a factual basis for the conspiracy plea. In the plea agreement,

Arreguin-Rivera agreed that he "conspired to deliver methamphetamine to Nebraska."

At the plea hearing, Arreguin-Rivera's statements, together with his lawyer's

statements, show that he was pleading guilty to a conspiracy because the car driver

was prepared to testify and implicate Arreguin-Rivera in the conspiracy.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.