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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31,
1998, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,950
<SECURITIES>                                     5,770
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                       912
<INVENTORY>                                      2,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,401
<PP&E>                                          12,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,339
<SALES>                                          4,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,061
<CGS>                                            2,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    81
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION 

EMERALD COAST RESTAURANTS 

INC. d/b/a O'QUIGLEY'S SEAFOOD 

STEAMER & OYSTER SPORTS BAR, 

a Florida profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

ASPEN SPECIAL TY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

a foreign profit corporation, 

Defendant. 

_______________ ! 

CASE NO: 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The Plaintiff, EMERALD COAST RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a 

O'QUIGLEY'S SEAFOOD STEA:tvlER & OYSTER SPORTS BAR("Plaintiff'), sues 

the Defendant, ASPEN SPECIAL TY INSURANCE COMP ANY ("Defendant"), and 

in support the Plaintiff states: 

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide insurance

coverage. The Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and the resulting response by state 

and local governments have caused physical loss to Plaintiffs property and have 

Page 1 of 46 

Case 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 46
Subpart 236.1 - GENERAL

Parent topic: Part 236 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT — ENGINEER CONTRACTS

236.102 Definitions.

“Construction activity” means an activity at any organizational level of the DoD that—

(1) Is responsible for the architectural, engineering, and other related technical aspects of the

planning, design, and construction of facilities; and

(2) Receives its technical guidance from the Army Office of the Chief of Engineers, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, or Air Force Directorate of Civil Engineering.

“Marshallese firm” is defined in the provision at 252.236-7012 , Military Construction on Kwajalein

Atoll—Evaluation Preference.

“United States firm” is defined in the provisions at 252.236-7010 , Overseas Military

Construction—Preference for United States Firms, and 252.236-7011 , Overseas Architect-Engineer

Services—Restriction to United States Firms.
52.236-14 Availability and Use of Utility Services.       As prescribed in 36.514, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction contract or a fixed-price dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements contract is contemplated, the contract is to be performed on Government sites when the contracting officer decides (a) that the existing utility system is adequate for the needs of both the Government and the contractor, and (b) furnishing it is in the Government’s interest. When this clause is used, the contracting officer shall list the available utilities in the contract.          Availability and Use of Utility Services (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The Government shall make all reasonably required amounts of utilities available to the Contractor from existing outlets and supplies, as specified in the contract. Unless otherwise provided in the contract, the amount of each utility service consumed shall be charged to or paid for by the Contractor at prevailing rates charged to the Government or, where the utility is produced by the Government, at reasonable rates determined by the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall carefully conserve any utilities furnished without charge.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor, at its expense and in a workmanlike manner satisfactory to the Contracting Officer, shall install and maintain all necessary temporary connections and distribution lines, and all meters required to measure the amount of each utility used for the purpose of determining charges. Before final acceptance of the work by the Government, the Contractor shall remove all the temporary connections, distribution lines, meters, and associated paraphernalia.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.236 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Authority:

[7 U.S.C. 71-87K](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/71), [1621-1627](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/1621).

###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at [84 FR 45645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-45645), Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.2004 Grades and grade requirements for triticale.

| Grade | Minimum test weight per bushel (pounds) | Maximum limits of— | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Damaged Kernels | | Foreign material | | Shrunken and broken kernels (percent) | Defects3 (percent) |
| Heat damaged (percent) | Total1 (percent) | Material other than wheat or rye (percent) | Total2 (percent) |
| U.S. No. 1 | 48.0 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| U.S. No. 2 | 45.0 | 0.2 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 |
| U.S. No. 3 | 43.0 | 0.5 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| U.S. No. 4 | 41.0 | 3.0 | 15.0 | 4.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| U.S. Sample grade— | | | | | | | |
| U.S. Sample grade is triticale that: | | | | | | | |
| (a) Does not meet the requirements for the grades U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, or 4; or | | | | | | | |
| (b) Contains 8 or more stones or any number of stones which have an aggregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight, 2 or more pieces of glass, 3 or more crotalaria seeds (*Crotalaria* spp.), 2 or more castor beans (*Ricinus communis* L.), 4 or more particles of an unknown foreign substance(s) or a commonly recognized harmful or toxic substance(s), 2 or more rodent pellets, bird droppings, or equivalent quantity of other animal filth per 11/8 to 11/4 quarts of triticale; or | | | | | | | |
| (c) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor); or | | | | | | | |
| (d) Is heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality. | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Includes heat-damaged kernels. | | | | | | | |
| 2 Includes material other than wheat or rye. | | | | | | | |
| 3 Defects include damaged kernels (total), foreign material (total) and shrunken and broken kernels. The sum of these three factors may not exceed the limit for defects for each numerical grade. | | | | | | | |

[[52 FR 24418](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/52-FR-24418), June 30, 1987; [52 FR 28534](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/52-FR-28534), July 31, 1987]
§ 622.32 Reviews and approvals. ( a ) The watershed plan-environmental impact statement (or assessment) will be subject to internal technical reviews, sponsor and other local party review, interagency review by other Federal, state, and concerned groups, and a final review as stated in NRCS's National Watersheds Manual.
( b ) After thorough review by NRCS and other agencies, the NRCS and the sponsors shall accept the plan-EIS or plan-EA by signing the watershed agreement. The watershed plan must be approved by the Committees of Congress or the Chief of NRCS. Funding for installation can then be granted by the Chief of NRCS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

VS CASE NO. 5:01CR22-RH/WCS

BILLY JOE BUCHANAN,

REFERRAL AND ORDER

The motion/pleading was filed by plaintiff on 07/22/2005 (document #190), and referred

to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill on 07/25/2005.

Summary of motion/pleading: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WILLIAM M. MCCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Pam Lourcey

DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2005, the

requested relief is GRANTED. The time for filing the response to the motion to vacate is

extended to September 6, 2005. Defendant shall have until October 7, 2005, in which to file a

reply.

S/ William C. Sherrill

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:01-cr-00022-RS-LB Document 191 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 1
§ 769.157 Intermediary's relending plan. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65062 , Aug. 8, 2024.
( a ) The intermediary must submit a proposed relending plan which, once approved by the Agency, will be incorporated by reference as an attachment to the HPRP loan agreement. The relending plan will explain in sufficient detail the mechanics of how the funds will be distributed from the intermediary to the ultimate recipient.
( b ) The intermediary's relending plan must include copies of the intermediary's proposed application forms, loan documents and security instruments, and should include information regarding: ( 1 ) The service area;
( 2 ) The proposed fees and other charges the intermediary will assess the ultimate recipients;
( 3 ) Eligibility criteria for the ultimate recipient;
( 4 ) Authorized loan purposes;
( 5 ) Loan limitations;
( 6 ) Loan underwriting methods and criteria;
( 7 ) Loan rates and terms;
( 8 ) Security requirements;
( 9 ) The method of disbursement of the funds to the ultimate recipient;
( 10 ) The process for addressing environmental issues on property to be purchased;
( 11 ) The proposed process for reviewing loan requests from ultimate recipients and making eligibility determinations;
( 12 ) A description of the established internal credit review process;
( 13 ) The monitoring and servicing of loans distributed to the ultimate recipients;
( 14 ) The amount that will be set aside to maintain a reserve for bad debts; and
( 15 ) A description of the requirements for maintaining adequate hazard insurance, life insurance (for principals and key employees of the ultimate recipient), workmen's compensation insurance on ultimate recipients, flood insurance, and fidelity bond coverage.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75454-75455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-821]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: December 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 2, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of review of the antidumping duty 
order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 53953 (September 2, 
2010). The administrative review covers the period August 1, 2008, 
through July 31, 2009.

Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the Department shall make a final determination in 
an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days 
after the date on which the preliminary results are published. The Act 
provides further that the Department may extend that 120-day period to 
180 days after the preliminary results if it determines it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.
    The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the 
final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand within the 120-
day time limit due to the necessity of issuing a post-preliminary 
determination regarding whether it is appropriate to use an alternative 
cost methodology. We find that additional time is needed to complete 
the final results. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion 
of the final results of this review, which is currently due on December 
31, 2010, by 60 days to March 1, 2011, which is the 180th day after 
publication of the preliminary results.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 
and 777(i) of the Act.


[[Page 75455]]


    Dated: November 29, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-30381 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ALBERTO SOLER,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:03cv515/RV/EMT

DONALD BAUKNECHT, WARDEN,

Respondent.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated July 26, 2005. Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the report and

recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United

States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the report and recommendation, and all objections thereto timely filed,

I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 63) is DENIED.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

UNITED STATES SENIOR JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00515-RV-EMT Document 88 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK

RONALD RYAN SHEPARD, JR.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 136, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by Ronald Ryan Shepard, Jr. For several reasons, the petition should be

denied. First, it has been inappropriately filed in the criminal case. A 2241 petition is a civil

matter separate and apart from the criminal proceeding with its own filing requirements,

including the payment of a minimal filing fee or permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Second, a 2241 petition must be filed in the district of confinement and must name as the proper

respondent the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, ____

U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 2718, 159 L.Ed. 2d 513 (2004). Defendant, who is housed at USP

Atlanta, is not presently incarcerated in this district. See http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp.

Finally, the savings clause of § 2255 permits a federal prisoner to seek § 2241 relief only when a

motion to vacate is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. §

2255; see also Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1244-45 (11th Cir. 1999). Even if Defendant

Case 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 137 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK

could meet this threshold, the petition is not properly before this Court for consideration for the

reasons previously stated. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus, Doc. 136, be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 28th day of August, 2007.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations

within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure

to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 137 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2
§ 799.42 Contents of an EA. ( a ) The EA should include at least the following: ( 1 ) FSA cover sheet;
( 2 ) Executive summary;
( 3 ) Table of contents;
( 4 ) List of acronyms;
( 5 ) A discussion of the purpose of and need for the proposed action;
( 6 ) A discussion of alternatives, if the proposed action involves unresolved conflicts concerning the uses of available resources;
( 7 ) A discussion of the existing pre-project environment and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, with reference to the significance of the impact as specified in § 799.8 and 40 CFR 1508.27;
( 8 ) Likelihood of any significant impact and potential mitigation measures that FSA will require, if needed, to support a FONSI;
( 9 ) A list of preparers and contributors;
( 10 ) A list of agencies, tribes, groups, and persons solicited for feedback and the process used to solicit that feedback;
( 11 ) References; and
( 12 ) Appendixes, if appropriate.
( b ) FSA will prepare a Supplemental EA, and place the supplements in the administrative record of the original EA, if: ( 1 ) Substantial changes occur in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns previously presented, or
( 2 ) Significant new circumstances or information arise that are relevant to environmental concerns and to the proposed action or its impacts.
( c ) FSA may request that a program participant prepare or provide information for FSA to use in the EA and may use the program participant's information in the EA or Supplemental EA, provided that FSA also: ( 1 ) Independently evaluates the environmental issues;
( 2 ) Takes responsibility for the scope and content of the EA and the process utilized, including any required public involvement; and
( 3 ) Prepares the FONSI or NOI to prepare an EIS.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.42





CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY
AMENDMENT TO
NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS AND RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENTS




This Amendment to Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreements and Restricted Stock Unit Agreements amends the Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreements and Restricted Stock Units Agreements for all outstanding stock options and restricted stock units (the “Awards) that were issued and remain outstanding under the Capella Education Company 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to the extent set forth below.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Awards.  


1.Amendment.  The Awards provide for accelerated vesting of the Awards in connection with a Change in Control under the circumstances and to the extent described in Sections 12(b) and 12(c) of the Plan.  Section 12(b)(4) of the Plan provides that, under the circumstances described therein, the Awards will vest and become exercisable in full if a Participant experiences an involuntary termination of Service for reasons other than Cause or voluntarily terminates his or her Service for Good Reason within one year after the Corporate Transaction.  The Awards are hereby amended to replace the period of “within one year after the Corporate Transaction” to instead be “within two years after the Corporate Transaction.”   
2.    Amendment Limited.  This Amendment shall not amend or modify the terms of the Awards, except to the extent expressly set forth above, which Awards, as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect.  
This Amendment shall be effective as of the 6th day of December, 2017. 


CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY




________________________________________                        
Name:
Title:  
Date:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY DEESE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv643-MHT

) 

HOMES OF LEGEND, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the joint motion to extend

deadlines and continue trial (Doc. No. 67) is granted as

follows:

(1) The uniform scheduling order (Doc. No. 10) is

amended to reflect that the pretrial is set for

May 22, 2008, and the trial is set for July 21,

2008, with all deadlines expressly tied to these

dates adjusted accordingly.

(2) The pretrial is specifically set for May 22,

2008, at 9:30 a.m. at the federal courthouse in

Montgomery, Alabama.

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 68 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 2
(3) Defendant’s motions for summary judgment (Doc.

Nos. 43 & 45) are reset for submission, without

oral argument, on May 9, 2008, with defendant’s

supplemental submission due by April 18, 2008,

and plaintiff’s supplemental submission due by

May 9, 2008. 

DONE, this the 18th day of January, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 68 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 2