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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                       893
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,116
<PP&E>                                           6,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,100
<BONDS>                                             12
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,399
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,082
<CGS>                                            1,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   106
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                       971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
### §1006. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §1144(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 669

Section, Pub. L. 96–254, title I, §107, May 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 402, set forth provisions respecting employment of Rock Island Railroad employees. See section 797c of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Aug. 13, 1981, see section 1169 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1101 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,383,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      49,718,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,835,527<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    39,893,737
<OTHER-SE>                                     556,255
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,835,527<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,155,766<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  684,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                556,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            556,255
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   556,255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Current Assets and Current Liabilities are not separated to conform
with industry standards
<F2>Income is from rental income. There are no Sales or Cost of Goods
Sold.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 180.425 Amendments to pleadings. ( a ) *By right.* HUD may amend the charge or notice of proposed adverse action once as a matter of right prior to the filing of the answer.
( b ) *By leave.* Upon such conditions as are necessary to avoid prejudicing the public interest and the rights of the parties, the ALJ may allow amendments to pleadings upon a motion of a party.
( c ) *Conformance to the evidence.* When issues not raised by the pleadings are reasonably within the scope of the original charge or notice of proposed adverse action and have been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, the issues shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, and amendments may be made as necessary to make the pleading conform to evidence.
( d ) *Supplemental pleadings.* The ALJ may, upon reasonable notice, permit supplemental pleadings concerning transactions, occurrences or events that have happened or been discovered since the date of the pleadings and which are relevant to any of the issues involved.
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

CASE NO. C 09-02712 RS

sf-2878455

DAN MARMALEFSKY (CA SBN 95477)

DMarmalefsky@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

555 West Fifth Street

Los Angeles, California 90013-1024

Telephone: 213.892.5200

Facsimile: 213.892.5454

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607)

PPreovolos@mofo.com

TIFFANY CHEUNG (CA SBN 211497)

TCheung@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

Attorneys for Defendant

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP

d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MAHBOD KHALILPOUR, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON

WIRELESS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. Case No. C 09-02712 RS

STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

CHANGING DATE FOR CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

*E-Filed 8/4/10*

Case 3:09-cv-02712-RS Document 37 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

CASE NO. C 09-02712 RS 1

sf-2878455

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties, by and through their respective 

counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, a Case Management Conference is currently scheduled for August 12, 2010; 

WHEREAS, the parties are still in the process of negotiating a settlement of the action;

WHEREAS, the parties believe that a two-week continuance of the case management 

conference will provide sufficient time for the parties to conclude their negotiations;

WHEREAS, the continuance will not have an effect on the schedule for the case;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, SUBJECT TO 

THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT:

1. The Case Management Conference is moved to August 26, 2010.

Dated: August 4, 2010 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Penelope A. Preovolos

Penelope A. Preovolos

Attorneys for Defendant

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

Verizon Wireless

Dated: August 4, 2010 ONGARO & BURTT LLP

By: /s/ David R. Ongaro

David R. Ongaro

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MAHBOD KHALILPOUR

I, Penelope A. Preovolos, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file 

this Stipulation. In compliance with General Order 45, section X.B., I hereby attest that I have on 

file the concurrences for any signatures indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this 

efiled document.

By: /s/ Penelope A. Preovolos

Penelope A. Preovolos

Case 3:09-cv-02712-RS Document 37 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

CASE NO. C 09-02712 RS 2

sf-2878455

PROPOSED ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August __, 2010

________________________ The Honorable Richard Seeborg

United States District Judge

4

Case 3:09-cv-02712-RS Document 37 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.902 Definitions. ( a ) *Terms found elsewhere.* The following terms used in this subpart are defined in subpart A of this part: *1937 Act, drug, federally assisted housing, household, HUD, public housing, public housing agency (PHA), Section 8.*
( b ) *Additional terms* used in this subpart are as follows:
*Adult.* A person who is 18 years of age or older, or who has been convicted of a crime as an adult under any Federal, State, or tribal law.
*Covered housing.* Public housing, project-based assistance under section 8 (including new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects), and tenant-based assistance under section 8.
*Law enforcement agency.* The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), police departments and other law enforcement agencies that hold criminal conviction records.
*Owner.* The owner of federally assisted housing.
*Responsible entity.* For the public housing program, the Section 8 tenant-based assistance program (part 982 of this title), the Section 8 project-based voucher program (part 983 of this title), and the Section 8 moderate rehabilitation program (part 882 of this title), *responsible entity* means the PHA administering the program under an Annual Contributions Contract with HUD. For all other Section 8 programs, responsible entity means the Section 8 owner.
[66 FR 28794, May 24, 2001, as amended at 89 FR 38290, May 7, 2024]
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment to the Executive Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is made as of November 1, 2022, by and between Mastech
InfoTrellis, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the “Company”), Mastech Digital Data, Inc., a Delaware corporation and owner of all of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company (hereinafter called
“MDD”), and the undersigned employee, Ganeshan Venkateshwaran (hereinafter called the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS,
Company, MDD and Executive are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement with an effective date of March 28, 2022, under which Executive is to be paid severance in the event his employment is terminated by Company; 

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Executive Employment Agreement to revise the Severance Payment on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth herein. 
 THEREFORE, for the consideration set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by
the parties, and intending to be legally bound hereby, Company and Executive agree as follows: 
 1.    In exchange for
the Company calling the termination a resignation, Executive agrees that: 
  

	 	a.	 Executive will be paid seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) (“Amended Severance Payment”) in
lieu of the Severance Payment set forth in the Executive Employment Agreement. The Amended Severance Payment will be paid as follows: 


  

	 	i.	 Five hundred fifty-thousand dollars ($550,000) will be paid out over a twelve (12) month period in
accordance with normal payroll practices of the Company; and 


  

	 	ii.	 One hundred fifty thousand ($150,000) will be paid out in a lump sum in accordance with normal payroll
practices of the Company. 


  

	 	b.	 Executive’s vesting in any unvested stock options will cease November 1, 2022. 



 

	 	c.	 Executive’s exercise period for any vested options will be as set forth in the applicable Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements. 


 2.    Except as expressly
provided in this Amendment, all of the terms and provisions of the Executive Employment Agreement, including that the Severance Payment is subject to Executive signing a Release, are and will remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified
and confirmed by the Parties. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the amendments contained herein will not be construed as an amendment to or waiver of any other provision of the Executive Employment Agreement or as a waiver of or
consent to any further or future action on the part of either Party that would require the waiver or consent of the other Party. 











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 

 

			
	Mastech InfoTrellis, Inc.
		
	By	 	 /s/ John J. Cronin, Jr.

	Name:	 	John J. Cronin, Jr.
	Title:	 	CFO
	
	Mastech Digital Data, Inc.
		
	By	 	 /s/ John J. Cronin, Jr.

	Name:	 	John J. Cronin, Jr.
	Title:	 	CFO
	
	Ganeshan Venkateshwaran
		
	By	 	 /s/ Ganeshan Venkateshwaran
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                            293,627
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6,443,276
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6,443,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             47,068
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          163
<OTHER-SE>                                        6,396,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6,443,276
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  150,454
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  136,421
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   14,033
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .01
        

</TABLE>
### §1469. Employment and compensation of personnel to perform work occasioned by emergencies

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons may be employed or otherwise contracted with by the Secretary of the Interior to perform work occasioned by emergencies such as fire, flood, storm, or any other unavoidable cause and may be compensated at regular rates of pay without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the regular workweek.

(Pub. L. 94–165, title I, §108, Dec. 23, 1975, 89 Stat. 990.)
#### John De Giacomo, Appellant, v C. Samuel Kissinger, as City Manager of the City of New Rochelle, et al., Respondents.

In an action to declare the obligation of the defendants to pay for certain medical expenses to be incurred in the future by the plaintiff, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 30, 1977, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time barred. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The plaintiff, a former municipal police officer with medical coverage benefits as provided in section 207-c of the General Municipal Law, submitted a $29.20 medical bill to defendants for reimbursement. The claim was denied by the defendant commissioner of police. More than four months after such denial plaintiff instituted this action for a judgment declaring defendants liable for the amount of the rejected bill and the expense of further corrective surgery allegedly necessitated by the same occurrence. We hold that section 207-c is properly the basis for a common-law action for declaratory relief, and is subject to the three-year limitation period contained in CPLR 214 (subd 2) applying to an action for *recovery*"upon a liability * * * created or imposed by statute” (cf. *Poniatowski v City of New York,*14 NY2d 76; *Board of Educ. v Rickard,*32 AD2d 135; *Kramer v Board of Educ.,*194 Misc 128, affd 275 App Div *915).*Accordingly, it is *of no moment*that plaintiff failed to institute an article 78 review proceeding within four months of the denial of his claim. It also merits mention that since there was no evidentiary hearing or other opportunity to contest the decision of the commissioner of police, no estoppel or *res judicata*effect may arise (see *Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx,*24 NY2d 65; *Matter of Colton*v *Berman,*21 NY2d 322, 337; *Matter of City of Albany v McMorran,*34 Misc 2d *316).*Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
§ 3284.10 *Minimum payments to states.* For every State that has a State plan fully or conditionally approved pursuant to § 3282.302 of this chapter, and subject to the availability of appropriations, HUD will pay such State annually a total amount that is the greater of either the amount of cumulative payments resulting from production and shipments due to that State for the period between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014; or the total amount determined by adding: ( a ) $9.00 for every transportable section that is first located on the premises of a retailer, distributor, or purchaser in that State after leaving the manufacturing plant (or $0, if it is not) during the year for which payment is received; and
( b ) 14.00 for every transportable section that is produced in a manufacturing plant in that State (or $0, if it is not) during the year for which payment is received.
[85 FR 71834, Nov. 12, 2020]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio J. Williams, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 793]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered October 20, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, “[t]he plea allocution as a whole establishes that [his] waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” *(People v Brown,*281 AD2d 962, 962 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 899 [2001]). That valid waiver encompasses the contentions of defendant with respect to County Court’s suppression rulings *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Stewart,*35 AD3d 1168 [2006]; *People v Rosado,*26 AD3d 891 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 838 [2006]), including his nonjurisdictional contention that his due process rights were violated because the police did not electronically record their interrogation of him at the police station *(see generally People v Verrone,*266 AD2d 16, 18 [1999]). In any event, that contention lacks merit because “ ‘[t]here is no Federal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded’ ” *(People v Kunz,*31 AD3d 1191 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 868 [2006]; *see People v Oglesby,*15 AD3d 888, 889 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 855 [2005]; *People v Martin,*294 AD2d 850 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 711 [2002]). Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]) and, in any event, defendant received the bargained-for sentence. Present—Gorski, J.E, Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,

PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J

ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his

official capacity as governor of

California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in

his official capacity as attorney

general of California; MARK B

HORTON, in his official capacity

as director of the California

Department of Public Health and

state registrar of vital

statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her

official capacity as deputy

director of health information &

strategic planning for the

California Department of Public

Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his

official capacity as clerkrecorder of the County of

Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his

official capacity as registrarrecorder/county clerk for the

County of Los Angeles, 

Defendants,

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J

KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ,

HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A

JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –

YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF

CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official

proponents of Proposition 8,

Defendant-Intervenors. /

No C 09-2292 VRW

ORDER

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 338 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

I

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion to compel the

deposition of Doug Swardstrom, a member of ProtectMarriage.com – 

Yes on 8 ad hoc executive committee. Doc #333. Swardstrom’s

identity as an executive committee member has only recently been

disclosed to plaintiffs. Id. The court GRANTS leave to file the

motion. 

To resolve the matter promptly, plaintiffs shall file

their motion not later than 7 PM PST on January 4, 2010. 

Proponents shall file their opposition not later than 5 PM PST on

January 5, 2010. The court will hear the matter at the hearing

previously scheduled for January 6, 2010 at 10 AM.

II

The court also wishes to hear the motion to intervene by

Imperial County, Doc #311, at the January 6 hearing. It would be

helpful to have Imperial County’s reply memorandum before the

January 6 hearing. Accordingly, Imperial County shall serve and

file its reply memorandum, if any, not later than January 5, 2010

at 5 PM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 338 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2