alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:216
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:217
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:218
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:219
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:220
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:221
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:222
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:223
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:224
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:225
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:226
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:227
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:228
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:229
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:230
Case: 1:12-cr-00395 Document #: 56 Filed: 01/18/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:231
#### 25.102 Policy.

Except as provided in 25.103, acquire only domestic end products for public use inside the United States.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATMENTS OF BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION FOR THIRTEEN WEEKS
ENDED FEBRUARY 2, 1996, AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH QUARTER,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           NOV-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                FEB-2-1996
<CASH>                                       6,029,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,235,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                   498,775
<INVENTORY>                                 12,294,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,870,855
<PP&E>                                      38,438,949
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,676,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,633,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,398,857
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,453,816
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,780,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,633,482
<SALES>                                     29,873,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,873,247
<CGS>                                       19,982,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,982,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,376,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,514,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                   576,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            938,869
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   938,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50007

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Versus

JORGE VARGAS-AGUILERA,, also known as

Jorge Vargas-Aguilar,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1423-ALL-DB

- - - - - - - - - -

August 14, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge

Vargas-Aguilera (Vargas) has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Vargas has received a copy of counsel’s motion and

brief. 

Vargas, who pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326, has

stated that he wishes to challenge only his sentence. Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no
No. 01-50007

-2-

nonfrivolous sentencing issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### 237.7303 Contract clauses.

Contracts made directly with students are nonpersonal service contracts but shall include the clauses at FAR 52.232-3, Payments Under Personal Services Contracts, and FAR 52.249-12, Termination (Personal Services).
#### 225.070 Reporting of acquisition of end products manufactured outside the United States.

Follow the procedures at PGI 225.070 for entering the data on the acquisition of end products manufactured outside the United States.

[79 FR 11342, Feb. 28, 2014]
#### 243.205-71 Requests for equitable adjustment.

Use the clause at 252.243-7002, Requests for Equitable Adjustment, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that are estimated to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

[63 FR 17124, Apr. 8, 1998. Redesignated at 66 FR 49865, Oct. 1, 2001; 78 FR 37989, June 25, 2013; 88 FR 6588, Jan. 31, 2023; 88 FR 17356, Mar. 22, 2023]
# C_2016398EN.01000201.xml

| 28.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8184 — CVC/CPPIB/Petco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 398/03)

On 21 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8184. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8184. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Barbara H. Null, Respondent, v Douglas P. Null, Appellant.

In *884an action to enforce a separation agreement, which agreement was later incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 4, 1978, which, *inter alia,*(1) granted judgment to the plaintiff on her first cause of action in the sum of $15,300 and (2) granted judgment to the defendant on his second counterclaim in the sum of "only” $1,377.40. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The parties were married in November, 1949 and there are three issue of the marriage. In November, 1974 they entered into a separation agreement which provides that the husband agrees to pay the wife, in fulfillment of his obligation to support her and the children, the sum of $1,200 per month commencing December, 1974 and continuing to March, 1977. The agreement mentions only one ground which would support the reduction of this amount, which is the remarriage of the wife. In August, 1975, as a result of an altercation between the plaintiff and Michael (one of the children of the marriage), defendant brought Michael to his residence for a "cooling off period”. Thereafter, although plaintiff was willing to accept his return, Michael decided to remain with the defendant. Defendant contends that the amount of support specified in the agreement should be reduced by virtue of the fact that there was a change in physical custody of their son. We find this contention to be without merit. When the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous the intent of the parties must be found therein. The courts will not imply a term which the parties themselves failed to insert *(Nichols v Nichols,*306 NY 490). In the present action the separation agreement provides only one condition, the plaintiff’s remarriage, which would allow defendant to reduce his support payments to the plaintiff. Consequently, it is the only condition which would permit a reduction (see *Stern v Stern,*41 AD2d 676). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 3.2
 BY-LAWS
OF
A. M. CASTLE & CO.
 As amended on October 28, 2010
 ARTICLE I
OFFICES
   ARTICLE II
MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS
      E-1




---



##### 



E-2




---



##### 



th th th th
  E-3




---



##### 



th th
  E-4




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
DIRECTORS
   E-5




---



##### 



E-6




---



##### 



E-7




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
NOTICES
   ARTICLE V
OFFICERS
    E-8




---



##### 



E-9




---



##### 



E-10




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 CERTIFICATES OF STOCK
      E-11




---



##### 



th
  E-12




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
       E-13




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
INDEMNIFICATION
  nolo contendere
  E-14




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENTS
   E-15
#### Natalia Zisa et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Respondent, and Roadway Contracting, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[834 NYS2d 127]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered May 11, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, *314denied the motion of defendant Roadway Contracting for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Roadway failed to establish prima face entitlement to summary dismissal. Evidence that the metal plates were constantly being dislodged by construction vehicles in the area raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Roadway had inadequately placed the plates in such a manner as to allow their shifting or moving, thereby creating a dangerous condition that existed at the time of the accident *(see Cuevas v City of New York,*32 AD3d 372 [2006]). The deposition testimony of Roadway’s employee that these plates were being dislodged raised a further issue as to whether they had been properly secured in compliance with New York City Highway Rules (34 RCNY) § 2-11 (e) (10) (iii) *(see Hoehn v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,*205 AD2d 734 [1994]). Even assuming Roadway did not create the dangerous condition, its employee’s testimony raised an issue of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition that was routinely being left unaddressed *(see Irizarry v 15 Mosholu Four, LLC,*24 AD3d 373 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 33-42214,33-98160, 333-80857 and 333-80843 on Form S-8 of Axcess International Inc. of our report datedJanuary 21, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Axcess InternationalInc. as December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the years then ended included in its Annual Report (Form10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2004.              /s/ Hein & Associates LLP         
March 30, 2005
#### 225.371 Contractor personnel supporting U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States.

For additional information on contractor personnel supporting U.S. Armed Forces, see PGI 225.371.

[80 FR 36901, June 26, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Butler
Manufacturing Company Consolidated Statements of Operations for the quarter
ended September 30, 1996, and Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30,
1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015840
<NAME> BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             143
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     55,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,460
<PP&E>                                         220,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                 148,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 329,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,799
<BONDS>                                         43,046<F1>
<COMMON>                                        12,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     134,885<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   329,634
<SALES>                                        598,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               599,425<F3>
<CGS>                                          488,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  488,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,410<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,305
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,460
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.32
<FN>
<F1>Reflects long-term debt, less current maturities
<F2>Reflects other stockholders' equity before deduction of $30.4 million cost of
treasury stock
<F3>Reflects net sales plus net international joint venture income less net other
expense
<F4>Consists of selling, general, and administrative expense
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

August 6, 1998

Raymond Leung
4018 Ben Lomond Drive
Palo Alto, California 94306

Dear Raymond:

        It gives us a great pleasure to extend this offer of employment to you
with Virage Logic Corporation. Virage Logic is an emerging semiconductor startup
and will greatly benefit from your contributions. To be sure that you understand
the terms and conditions of this offer of employment, I would like to detail
them below:

        Your position will be Vice President of Engineering operations and
reporting to Adam Kablanian. In this position you will receive a base salary of
$4,807.70 bi-weekly ($125,000 annualized), plus the following compensation
package:

        In addition to this, we would like to offer you 100,000 (One Hundred
Thousand) Founders shares of Virage Logic Corporation to be vested over four
years and subject to the board of directors approval and any legal requirements
of the Virage Logic Corporation Stock Option Plan.

        The vesting schedule will be as follows:

        -     Quarterly vesting for the first year of employment unless you
              voluntarily terminate you employment prior to completion of one
              year. Should you voluntarily terminate prior to one year of
              service you will forfeit all vested options.

        -     Quarterly thereafter for the remaining 75%.

        If the company is acquired and your position is eliminated, all unvested
shares become immediately fully vested and subject to the same constraints put
forth on the shares of the key personnel of the company.

        You will be eligible for all the standard company benefits, including a
full medical and dental coverage as of the date of hire. Two weeks of vacation,
five days sick leave and 10 paid holidays.



<PAGE>   2

Raymond Leung
August 6, 1998
Page 2


        As is normal practice, this offer is contingent upon verification of
work authorization as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986, as well as your signing the "Employment Invention and Confidential
Information Agreement." I have enclosed a copy of the Employment Invention and
Confidential Information Agreement for your review.

        If you find the terms of this offer acceptable, please sign below
conveying your acceptance and indicate a start date prior to returning this
letter. Retain the enclosed copy of this letter for your records. Raymond, we
are excited about the opportunity to have you join our Company. We are confident
you will make a significant contribution to the success and future of Virage
Logic Corporation. We certainly look forward to an affirmation reply to his
offer by August 12, 1998.

Very truly yours,

Renac Hogan
Human Resources Manager



/s/ Raymond Leung                     8/26/98
---------------------------------     -----------------------------------
Signature of Applicant                Start Date
II 

Calendar No. 9 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 63 

[Report No. 115–3] 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2017 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DAINES, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

WICKER, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROUNDS, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

FEBRUARY 17 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 16), 2017 

Reported by Mr. HOEVEN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian 

lands under the National Labor Relations Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Labor Sov5 ereignty Act of 2017’’. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 63 RS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER. 

2 Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

3 U.S.C. 152) is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or any In5 dian tribe, or any enterprise or institution owned 

6 and operated by an Indian tribe and located on its 

7 Indian lands,’’ after ‘‘subdivision thereof,’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(15) The term ‘Indian tribe’ means any Indian 

10 tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 

11 or community which is recognized as eligible for the 

12 special programs and services provided by the 

13 United States to Indians because of their status as 

14 Indians. 

15 ‘‘(16) The term ‘Indian’ means any individual 

16 who is a member of an Indian tribe. 

17 ‘‘(17) The term ‘Indian lands’ means— 

18 ‘‘(A) all lands within the limits of any In19 dian reservation; 

20 ‘‘(B) any lands title to which is either held 

21 in trust by the United States for the benefit of 

22 any Indian tribe or individual or held by any 

23 Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 

24 by the United States against alienation; and 

25 ‘‘(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma 

26 that are within the boundaries of a former resmstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 63 RS

1 ervation (as defined by the Secretary of the In2 terior) of a federally recognized Indian tribe.’’. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 9 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 63 

[Report No. 115–3] 

A BILL 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes 

F

tions Act. on Indian lands under the National Labor RelaEBRUARY 17 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 16), 2017 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### 236.609 Contract clauses.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
SUE JOHNSON )
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 3:12-cv-0189
v. ) Judge Nixon
ZIMMER, INC., et al,
Defendants. ;
ORDER

Pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-41) of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, Docket No. 2272, this case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and electronically transmit the record to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

ee

John T. Nixon
United States District Judge

It is so ORDERED.
#### 246.404 Government contract quality assurance for acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.

Do not require Government contract quality assurance at source for contracts or delivery orders valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold unless the criteria at 246.402 have been met.

[70 FR 8543, Feb. 22, 2005]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 18 (Friday, January 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01960]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Pricing for Armed Forces 2.5 oz. Silver Medals

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The United States Mint is announcing a price of $160.00 for the 
Armed Forces 2.5 oz. Silver Medals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Bailey, Sales and Marketing; 
United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 
202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111(a)(2).


Eric Anderson,
Executive Secretary, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2021-01960 Filed 1-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P