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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARK
VII, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1995
AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                             272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,336
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,254
<PP&E>                                           8,392
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,552
<BONDS>                                            712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           489
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,152
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,160
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  391,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,797
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,734
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Florida

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

GARY VENNING

Case No: 3:99cr29/LAC

USM 53584-004

Date of Previous Judgment: 3 January 2000

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

: DENIED. 9 GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 35 Amended Offense Level: 35

Criminal History Category: VI Criminal History Category: VI

Previous Guideline Range: 292 to 365 months Amended Guideline Range: 292 to 365 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

9 The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time 

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

: Other (explain): The present sentence of 170 months is a significant departure from the applicable guidelines and the

mandatory minimum of life. The mandatory minimum of life still applies and, despite the reduction

in the guidelines, the sentence of 170 months is still appropriate.

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 3 January 2000 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: s/L.A. Collier 4 March 2008

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Lacey A. Collier, Senior U.S. District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:99-cr-00029-LC-MD Document 205 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.27
 KB HOME
CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN
       1. Defined Terms
 Act
 Affiliate
 Board
 Cause




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Code
 Committee
 Company
 Disability
 Good Reason
 Participants
 3




---



##### 



Protected Period
     4




---



##### 



Specified Employee
 2. Effective Date of Plan
 5




---



##### 



3. Administration
   4. Benefits Provided
 Termination After Change in Control
 6




---



##### 



Section 280G.
  7




---



##### 



provided, however
  8




---



##### 



4.3 Compliance with Section 409A of the Code; Delay in Payments to Specified
Employees
 5. Termination Procedures
 Notice of Termination
 Date of Termination
 Covenants
 9




---



##### 



provided, however
 6. No Mitigation
 7. Successors
    8. Notices
 10




---



##### 



9. Claims Procedures; Expenses
 Claim for Benefits.
  Appeal of Denial.
  Expenses, Legal Fees.
 11




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 No Waiver
 No Right to Employment
 Termination and Amendment of Plan
 Benefits not Assignable
 Tax Withholding
 Delaware Law
 12




---



##### 



Validity
 13
#### Charles H. Sells, Inc., Appellant, v. New York State Thruway Authority, Respondent.

(Claim No. 37073.)

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by claimant from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing its claim for extra compensation for engineering, supervision and inspection services, and interest on the retained percentages. We find controlling *Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton*v. *New York State Thruway Auth.*(18 A D 2d 402, affd. 13 N Y 2d 1091). That was a similar claim for engineering services rendered when the completion date of the prime construction contract between the contractor and the Thruway Authority was extended. The burden on appellant here, as set forth in *Tippetts (supra),*to show that the Authority unreasonably delayed the work has not been met. The trial record contains various instances and reasons for the problems and delays common to this type of extensive highway construction program. In addition, the contract provisions between appellant and the Authority stated that the contract was to continue during extensions of the prime contract and appellant was put on notice not to expect additional fees during extensions of time. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Aulisi, J.
| CERTIFICATION                PURSUANT TO                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 18                U.S.C. SECTION 1350                                       |
| AS                ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                       |
| SECTION                906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF                2002 |

| 1.     | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| 2.     | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Date:              November 14, 2007                      |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                      |   |   |   |
| /s/                Charles Bentz                          |   |   |        |
| Charles                Bentz, Principal Financial Officer |   |   |        |
|                                                           |   |   |        |

----
From: "Chari, Desi (D)" < dchari@dow.com >

To: Bill Neuffer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/17/2012 03:52 PM Subject: Nitric acid NSPS - Information Needed

Dear Bill, Please find attached information from a single pressure, small scale Nitric Acid plant operated by the Dow Chemical Company at its Sterlington Louisiana Plant (formerly Angus Chemicals). Hope this information would be helpful as EPA considers our comments on the proposed revisions to the Nitric Acid NSPS regulations. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 978 - 557 - 1814 or dchari@dow..com Regards, Desi Chari Operations Regulatory Services The Dow Chemical Company 60 Willow Street North Andover, MA 01845 978- 57 - 1814 (Work) 978- 758 - 6332 (Mobile)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KELVIN FREEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, 

Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1)

Submitted: April 24, 2012 Decided: May 7, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Ronald Mitchell 

Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Freeman appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2011).∗ We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Freeman correctly notes that the district 

court’s consideration of his motion under Amendment 750 was 

premature as the amendment had not yet gone into effect at the 

time the court entered the order. However, because Amendment 

750 is now in effect and the district court did not err in 

concluding that Freeman does not qualify for a sentence 

reduction under Amendment 750, this argument is moot.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Freeman, No. 3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1 (W.D. 

Va. Oct. 17, 2011). We further deny Freeman’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 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

 ∗ To the extent Freeman relied on Amendment 706 to the 

Guidelines in his § 3582(c)(2) motion, that amendment was 

already taken into consideration at his sentencing, which took 

place after the amendment’s effective date of November 1, 2007.
§ 360.304 Denial of an application for a permit to move a noxious weed; revocation of a permit to move a noxious weed. ( a ) The Administrator may deny an application for a permit to move a noxious weed when the Administrator determines that: ( 1 ) No safeguards adequate or appropriate to prevent dissemination of the noxious weed can be implemented; or
( 2 ) The destructive potential of the noxious weed, should it escape despite proposed safeguards, outweighs the probable benefits to be derived from the proposed movement and use of the noxious weed; or
( 3 ) The responsible person, or the responsible person's agent, as a previous permittee, failed to maintain the safeguards or otherwise observe the conditions prescribed in a previous permit and failed to demonstrate the ability or intent to observe them in the future; or
( 4 ) The movement could impede an APHIS eradication, suppression, control, or regulatory program; or
( 5 ) A State plant regulatory official objects to the issuance of the permit on the grounds that granting the permit will pose a risk of dissemination of the noxious weed into the State; or
( 6 ) The application for the permit contains information that is found to be materially false, fraudulent, or deceptive; or
( 7 ) APHIS may deny a permit to a person who has previously failed to comply with any APHIS regulation.
( b ) The Administrator may revoke any outstanding permit when: ( 1 ) After the issuance of the permit, information is received that constitutes cause for the denial of an application for permit under paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 2 ) The responsible person has not maintained the safeguards or otherwise observed the conditions specified in the permit.
( c ) If a permit is orally revoked, APHIS will provide the reasons for the withdrawal of the permit in writing within 10 days. Any person whose permit has been revoked or any person who has been denied a permit may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving the written notification of the revocation or denial. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the permit was wrongfully revoked or denied. The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision as promptly as circumstances allow. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning such a hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
[75 FR 68954, Nov. 10, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 19812, Apr. 10, 2014]
#### Philip Albano, Respondent, v. Schwab Bros. Trucking, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Glens Falls Insurance Co., et al., Appellants.

-Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Suit had not been commenced on any of the matters now in litigation at the time the statements sought were made but creditors of defendant Schwab were threatening suit if they were not paid. It appears that counsel was retained by Glens Falls Insurance Co. in contemplation of litigation and that the written statements of Baker and Wykoff requested after consultation with and advice from counsel were obtained in preparation for litigation. The surrounding circumstances negate the idea that this was a routine investigation in order to aid the company in making an internal decision upon a policy claim. *(Welch*v. *Globe Ind. Co.,*25 A D 2d 70.) Since the record clearly demonstrates that the statements of Baker and Wykoff, made on February 17, 1965, were obtained after consultation with counsel and upon his advice they should be protected from discovery as materials prepared for litigation. *(Brunswick Corp.*v. *Ætna, Gas. & Sur. Co.,*27 A D 2d 182.) There will be no undue hardship upon plaintiff if the statements are not produced for he has already had an oral examination of defendant Wykoff and does not allege he could not obtain one of defendant Baker. Plaintiff thus would not be entitled to relief under CPLR 3101 (subd. [d], pars. 1, 2). (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, par. 3101.55.) (Appeal from order of Brie Special Term granting motion for discovery and inspection.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr25-SPM

DAVID WAYNE JACKSON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND SETTING CHANGE OF PLEA

Pending before the Court is Defendant David Wayne Jackson’s motion to

continue trial (doc. 36). As grounds, Defendant explains that he is actively

negotiating a plea agreement with the Government through counsel and fully

expects this case to conclude with a plea. However, in the event the plea is not

accepted by the Court, Defendant will need addition time to prepare a second

motion to suppress and will need time to prepare for trial. 

A refusal to grant a continuance would deny Defendant reasonable time

for effective trial preparation should this case proceed to trial. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The ends of justice served by continuing trial outweigh the

best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion (doc. 36) is granted. 

Case 4:03-cr-00025-MW-CAS Document 37 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 4:03cr25-SPM

2. A hearing for Defendant to enter a change of plea is scheduled for

5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 2005 at the United States Courthouse in

Tallahassee, Florida.

3. Trial is continued to 8:30 a.m. on July 18, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00025-MW-CAS Document 37 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 2
§ 4288.137 Succession and loss of control of advanced biofuel facilities and production. ( a ) *Contract succession.* An entity who becomes the eligible advanced biofuel producer for an advanced biofuel facility that is under contract under this subpart must request permission from the Agency to succeed to the Program contract and the Agency may grant such request if it is determined that the entity is an eligible producer and permitting such succession would serve the purposes of the Program. If appropriate, the Agency may require the consent of the previous eligible advanced biofuel producer to such succession.
( b ) *Loss of control.* Payments will be made only for eligible advanced biofuels produced at an advanced biofuel facility owned or controlled by an eligible advanced biofuel producer with a valid contract. If payments are made to an advanced biofuel producer for production at an advanced biofuel facility no longer owned or controlled by said producer or to an otherwise ineligible advanced biofuel producer, the Agency will demand full refund of all such payments.
#### § 43.101 Meaning of words.

Words used in this subpart in the singular form shall be considered to impart the plural, or vice versa, as the case may demand.
Page 1 of 2

Cases No. 4:19cv467-RH-MJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN DOES #1-69 individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASES NO. 4:19cv467-RH-MJF

RICK SWEARINGEN,

Commissioner of the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION

The plaintiffs are individuals required to register as sex offenders. They 

assert the requirement is unconstitutional. They have moved to certify a class, but 

they are proceeding anonymously, as authorized by an order of the Middle District 

of Florida before transfer of the case to this court. That order may be revisited on 

this court’s own motion. In the meantime, this order denies the motion to certify a 

class without prejudice to renewal. With the plaintiffs’ identities unknown, the 

defendant has not had an opportunity to address, and the record does not establish, 
Page 2 of 2

Cases No. 4:19cv467-RH-MJF

that the plaintiffs will adequately represent the class, as required for class 

certification.

IT IS ORDERED:

The class-certification motion, ECF No. 35, is denied without prejudice.

SO ORDERED on September 29, 2019.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                    -----------------------------------------


        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
   incorporation by reference of our reports dated May 6, 1997 (except with
   respect to the matters discussed in Note 17 as to which the date is May 12,
   1997), included in or incorporated by reference into Thermo TerraTech
   Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 29, 1997, and
   into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements as follows:
   Registration Statement No. 333-02269 on Form S-2, Registration Statement
   No. 33-16462 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-16464 on Form S-8,
   Registration Statement No. 33-16465 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
   33-16466 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-31478 on Form S-3,
   Registration Statement No. 333-2055 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No.
   33-52824 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 033-65307 on Form S-8,
   Registration Statement No. 033-65283 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
   No. 033-65281 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 33-86194 on Form
   S-8.



                                              Arthur Andersen LLP



   Boston, Massachusetts
   June 6, 1997