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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000712757
<NAME> CAMBRIDGE HOLDINGS LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,640,216
<SECURITIES>                                   694,491
<RECEIVABLES>                                  506,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               912,343
<PP&E>                                          20,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,756,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,223
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,710
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,608,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,756,508
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,443
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               176,199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                    49,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,244
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,244
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02466]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight hereby gives 
notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of 
National Science Board business as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, February 10, 2021, from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's 
opening remarks; presentation regarding merit review analysis; review 
of two proposed NSB policies; and discussion of data on careers of NSF-
funded graduate students.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Ann Bushmiller, [email protected], 703/292-7000. To listen to this 
teleconference, members of the public must send an email to 
[email protected] at least 24 hours prior to the 
teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters 
a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be 
found at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/index.jsp. Please refer to 
the National Science Board website at www.nsf.gov/nsb for general 
information.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-02466 Filed 2-2-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
# C_2016440EN.01000102.xml

| 26.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 440/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8055 — Coherent/Rofin-Sinar Technologies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 440/02)

On 26 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 32016M8055. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8055. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
#### In the Matter of Gem Credit Corporation, Respondent, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Appellant.

Motion by petitionerrespo'ndent granted to the extent of adjourning the appeal to the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. In all other respects the motion is denied. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------
                         CHATTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                         ------------------------------

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              -----------------------------------------------------
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                 FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                        FEBRUARY 28,
                                                  ------------------------
                                                    2003            2002
                                                  --------        --------
NET INCOME (LOSS):
   Income before change in accounting
     principle ...........................        $  4,589        $  2,372
   Change in accounting principle ........            --            (8,877)
                                                  --------        --------
     Net income (loss) ...................        $  4,589        $ (6,505)
                                                  ========        ========

NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES:
   Weighted average outstanding ..........          19,165          17,928
   Issued upon assumed exercise of .......
     outstanding stock options ...........             688             645
   Effect of issuance of restricted common
    shares ...............................              96              64
                                                  --------        --------
   Weighted average and potential
     dilutive outstanding ................          19,949          18,637
                                                  ========        ========

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON
 SHARE:
    Basic:
      Income before change in accounting
          principle ......................        $    .24        $    .13
      Change in accounting principle .....            --              (.49)
                                                  --------        --------
          Total basic ....................        $    .24        $   (.36)
                                                  ========        ========

    Diluted:
      Income before change in accounting
          principle ......................        $    .23        $    .13
      Change in accounting principle .....            --              (.48)
                                                  --------        --------
          Total diluted ..................        $    .23        $   (.35)
                                                  ========        ========
JACQUES RIVERA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REYNALDO GUEVARA, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 12 C 4428 

Hon. Joan B. Gottschall, 

 District Judge 

Hon. Mary M. Rowland, 

 Magistrate Judge 

TO: All Counsel of Record

Please take notice that on Tuesday, June 19, 2018, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., counsel for 

Plaintiff shall appear before Judge Gottschall in the Courtroom usually occupied by her at 

219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, and present Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar Certain 

Testimony of Assistant State's Attorney Darren O'Brien. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JACQUES RIVERA 

By: /s/ Jon Loevy 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys 

Arthur Loevy Locke E. Bowman 

Jon Loevy David Shapiro 

Russell Ainsworth Alexa Van Brunt 

Anand Swaminathan RODERICK MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 

Steven Art Northwestern University School of Law 

Rachel Brady 375 E. Chicago Avenue 

Sean Starr Chicago, Illinois 60611 

LOEVY & LOEVY (312) 503-0844

311 N. Aberdeen St., Third Floor 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900 J. Samuel Tenenbaum

BLUHM LEGAL CLINIC

Northwestern University School of Law

375 E. Chicago Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 503-8576

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 605 Filed: 06/18/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:33439
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Jon Loevy, an attorney, hereby certify that on June 18, 2018, I filed the foregoing 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system and thereby served a copy on all counsel of record. 

/s/ Jon Loevy 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys 

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 605 Filed: 06/18/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:33440
#### 252.217-7001 Surge option.

As prescribed in 217.208-70(b), use the following clause:

# Surge Option (DEC 2018)

(a) *General.* The Government has the option to—

(1) Increase the quantity of supplies or services called for under this contract by no more than ____percent or ____*[insert quantity and description of services or supplies to be increased];* and/or

(2) Accelerate the rate of delivery called for under this contract, at a price or cost established before contract award or to be established by negotiation as provided in this clause.

(b) *Schedule.* (1) When the Capabilities Analysis Plan (CAP) is included in the contract, the option delivery schedule shall be the production rate provided with the Plan. If the Plan was negotiated before contract award, then the negotiated schedule shall be used.

(2) If there is no CAP in the contract, the Contractor shall, within 30 days from the date of award, furnish the Contracting Officer a delivery schedule showing the maximum sustainable rate of delivery for items in this contract. This delivery schedule shall provide acceleration by month up to the maximum sustainable rate of delivery achievable within the Contractor's existing facilities, equipment, and subcontracting structure.

(3) The Contractor shall not revise the option delivery schedule without approval from the Contracting Officer.

(c) *Exercise of option.* (1) The Contracting Officer may exercise this option at any time before acceptance by the Government of the final scheduled delivery.

(2) The Contracting Officer will provide a preliminary oral or written notice to the Contractor stating the quantities to be added or accelerated under the terms of this clause, followed by a contract modification incorporating the transmitted information and instructions. The notice and modification will establish a not-to-exceed price equal to the highest contract unit price or cost of the added or accelerated items as of the date of the notice.

(3) The Contractor will not be required to deliver at a rate greater than the maximum sustainable delivery rate under paragraph (b)(2) of this clause, nor will the exercise of this option extend delivery more than 24 months beyond the scheduled final delivery.

(d) *Price negotiation.* (1) Unless the option cost or price was previously agreed upon, the Contractor shall, within 30 days from the date of option exercise, submit to the Contracting Officer a cost or price proposal (including a cost breakdown) for the added or accelerated items.

(2) Failure to agree on a cost or price in negotiations resulting from the exercise of this option shall constitute a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the Disputes clause of this contract. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the performance of the contract, as modified, while any resulting claim is being settled.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 42633, Sept. 15, 1992; 83 FR 62503, Dec. 4, 2018]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

ILLINOIS LIBERTY PAC, et al., ) 

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 12-cv-5811

)

v. ) 

) Judge Gary Feinerman

LISA MADIGAN, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit A Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosure 

Exhibit B Deposition Testimony of Dr. Marcus Osborn

Case: 1:12-cv-05811 Document #: 116-1 Filed: 10/21/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2517
#### D. H. Evans *vs.*Henry Smith and others.

February 27, 1890.

Chattel Mortgage — Acknowledgment—Notarial Seal. — Where a certificate of acknowledgment was duly signed by a notary public, and his notarial seal was impressed upon the same paper, but “on the opposite side and end thereof,” but plainly visible, and there was but one certificate to which the seal could be made applicable, *held*a sufficient authentication.

Action brought in the district court for Lyon county, for the conversion of two horses, claimed by both parties under chattel mortgages from the same mortgagor, that to defendants being the earlier. The issue of value was tried by a jury, who found the value to be $96.75. The other issues were tried by *Webber,*J., upon whose findings a judgment was entered for defendants, from which the plaintiff appeals.

H. *C. Grass*and *Daniel Rohrer,*for appellant.

*60
      *F. S. Brown,*for respondents.

Vanderburgh, J.

The legal question presented here is whether the certificate of acknowledgment of the chattel mortgage set forth in the record is properly authenticated, and arises upon the following finding of the court: “ The mortgage is written upon one side of a sheet of paper, and is in proper form. Upon the other side of the sheet is a certificate of acknowledgment in proper form, and duly and officially signed by a notary public, but no notarial seal is impressed upon the side of said sheet on which said certificate of acknowledgment is written; but said seal is impressed upon the other side, that upon which the mortgage is written, and the impression thereof is distinctly visible through the sheet, and upon the side containing the certificate of acknowledgment, but at the opposite end of the sheet.” There is no other certificate on the paper to which the notarial seal could be made applicable. It must be referred to, and be deemed to be the authentication of, the notary’s certificate upon the same paper. The legal intendment from the record will be that the notary used his seal for such purpose in the discharge of his official duty.

Judgment affirmed.
#### 252.225-7002 Qualifying Country Sources as Subcontractors.

As prescribed in 225.1101(3), use the following clause:

# Qualifying Country Sources as Subcontractors (MAR 2022)

(a) *Definition. Qualifying country,* as used in this clause, means a country with a reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding or international agreement with the United States in which both countries agree to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other country or services performed by sources of the other country, and the memorandum or agreement complies, where applicable, with the requirements of section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) and with 10 U.S.C. 2457. Accordingly, the following are qualifying countries:

- Australia
- Austria
- Belgium
- Canada
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Netherlands
- Norway
- Poland
- Portugal
- Slovenia
- Spain
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Turkey
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(b) Subject to the restrictions in section 225.872 of the Defense FAR Supplement, the Contractor shall not preclude qualifying country sources or U.S. sources from competing for subcontracts under this contract.

(End of clause)

[68 FR 15634, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 77 FR 38737, June 29, 2012; 77 FR 76942, Dec. 31, 2012; 81 FR 50651, Aug. 2, 2016: 81 FR 93841, Dec. 22, 2016; 82 FR 61484, Dec. 28, 2017; 87 FR 15816, Mar. 18, 2022]
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Rhode Island Department of Education255 Westminster StreetProvidence, RI 02903-3400Phone: (401) 222-4600Website: http://www.ride.ri.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

Rhode Island Office of the Postsecondary CommissionerRIHEAA Building560 Jefferson Blvd, Suite 100Warwick, RI 02886Phone: (401) 736-1100Website: https://www.riopc.edu/

### Special Education Agency

Office for Special EducationRhode Island Department of Education255 Westminster StreetProvidence, RI 02903-3400Phone: (401) 222-8333Website:  http://www.ride.ri.gov/StudentsFamilies/SpecialEducation.aspx

### State Adult Education Agency

Office of College and Career ReadinessState Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 255 Westminster Street Providence, RI 02903-3414 Phone: (401) 222-8455Website: http://www.ride.ri.gov/GED

Back to state map
<PAGE>   1

                                                                          EX-10U


                         THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A.

                            MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


                             INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT


         WHEREAS, The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. maintains The Chase Manhattan
Management Incentive Plan (the "Program"), pursuant to resolutions of the Board
of Directors of The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.;

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
resolved on August 25, 1995, that the Program be amended as set forth in this
Instrument of Amendment;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Program is hereby amended as follows:

1. Section 2(b) of the resolutions dated August 17, 1990 to the Program is
amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:

         For purposes of this Change in Control Provision, an Approved Change in
         Control shall not constitute a Change in Control. As used herein, the
         term "Approved Change in Control" means any Change in Control occurring
         by reason of or upon the occurrence of the transactions and events
         contemplated by the Merger Agreement. "Merger Agreement" means any
         agreement or plan of merger or consolidation between CMC and Chemical
         Banking Corporation that is approved by the Boards of Directors of CMC
         and Chemical Banking Corporation on or before September 30, 1995, as
         modified from time to time.

2. This Instrument of Amendment shall be effective as of August 25, 1995.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. has executed this
Instrument of Amendment as of August 25, 1995.



                                                  THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A.



                                                  By:  /s/ JOHN J. FARRELL
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     John J. Farrell
                                                     Executive Vice President
#### BESANT v. GLENS FALLS INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1903.)

Action by Joseph B. Besant against the Glens Falls Insurance Company.

No opinion. Motion denied on the ground of laches.
3.703 Authority. ( a ) Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 87-849, 18 U.S.C. 218 (*the Act*), empowers the President or the heads of executive agencies acting under regulations prescribed by the President, to declare void and rescind contracts and other transactions enumerated in the Act, in relation to which there has been a final conviction for bribery, conflict of interest, or any other violation of Chapter 11 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 201-224). Executive Order 12448, November 4, 1983, delegates the President's authority under the Act to the heads of the executive agencies and military departments.
( b ) 41 U.S.C. 2105(c) requires a Federal agency, upon receiving information that a contractor or a person has violated 41 U.S.C. 2102, to consider rescission of a contract with respect to which— ( 1 ) The contractor or someone acting for the contractor has been convicted for an offense punishable under 41 U.S.C. 2105(a); or
( 2 ) The head of the agency, or designee, has determined, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the contractor or someone acting for the contractor has engaged in conduct constituting such an offense.
[51 FR 27116, July 29, 1986, as amended at 62 FR 232, Jan. 2, 1997; 79 FR 24197, Apr. 29, 2014]
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Robert W. Gettleman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5844 DATE 6/18/2013

CASE

TITLE

Flava Works v John Does

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Status hearing held. Defendant John Doe #19's motion [89] to dismiss is granted without

prejudice. All remaining John Doe defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

Status hearing continued to 7/2/2013, at 9:00 a.m.

 [Docketing to mail notice]

00:12

 Courtroom Deputy GDS

Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 91 Filed: 06/18/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2326
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:47
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:48
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:49
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:50
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:51
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:52
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:53
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:54
Case: 1:12-cv-05810 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/02/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:55