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

<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998     
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                                        3,385,000
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 9,885,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    642,000
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             13,315,000 
<PP&E>                                        4,729,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                2,939,000 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               19,394,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         4,800,000
<BONDS>                                           0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0 
<PREFERRED>                                      25,000
<COMMON>                                         64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   14,205,000 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 19,394,000
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             12,902,000
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             14,241,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               50,000 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,389,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,389,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29) 
        



</TABLE>
Kiakakrorak

R iver 

K o gosukruk R iv er 

Fish

Cre ek 

Judy

C re e

k 

Tu nalik

River 

To p ag oruk 

Inaru River 

Kuk 

Riv er 

Col v il e 

Ikpikpu k 

River 

Meade 

Col v ill e 

Meade River 

River 

River 

Ri v e r 

R i v e r 

Maybe Creek 

Titaluk River 

Barrow 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Har rison

Bay 

Tangent Point 

Be a uf ort S ea 

Point Barrow 

Dease Inlet 

Walakpa Bay 

Peard ay 

Ch uk c hi S e a 

Kasegaluk 

Lagoon 

Atigaru Po

Cape

B

A R C T I C O C E A N

Point Belcher 

Cape Si Point Frankli mpson n Pitt Point

Admiralt Smith Bay Bayy 

Halkett

Wainwright 

Teshekpuk Lake int

Icy Cape Atqasuk

Point Lay 

BARROW SUBSISTENCE USE AREAS 

Whale Harvest Area

Moose Harvest Area

Caribou Harvest Area 

Native Corporations Surface Ownership 

0 6 12 18

Miles 

l

Source: Pedersen 1979 and SRBA, 1989

Map 3-38. Barrow Subsistence Use Areas for Whale, Moose, and Caribou in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
§ 335.221 Forms for registration of securities and cross reference to Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). ( a ) The applicable forms for registration of securities and similar matters are codified in 17 CFR part 249. All forms shall be filed with the FDIC as appropriate and shall be titled with the name of the FDIC instead of the SEC.
( b ) The requirements for Financial Statements can generally be found in Regulation S-X (17 CFR part 210). Banks and State savings associations may also refer to the instructions for Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income when preparing unaudited interim statements. The requirements for Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations can be found at 17 CFR part 229. Additional requirements are provided at Industry Guide 3, Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies, which is found at 17 CFR part 229.
( c ) The provisions of the applicable and currently effective SEC regulation FD shall be followed as codified at 17 CFR part 243.
[75 FR 73949, Nov. 30, 2010; 79 FR 63501, Oct. 24, 2014]
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9036]

Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation Notice 
of Charter Renewal for 2015

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation 
is renewing its charter for a period of two years. This Advisory 
Committee will continue to make recommendations to the Historian and 
the Department of State on all aspects of the Department's program to 
publish the Foreign Relations of the United States series as well as on 
the Department's responsibility under statute (22 U.S.C. 4351, et seq.) 
to open its 30-year old and older records for public review at the 
National Archives and Records Administration. The Committee consists of 
nine members drawn from among historians, political scientists, 
archivists, international lawyers, and other social scientists who are 
distinguished in the field of U.S. foreign relations.
    Questions concerning the Committee and the renewal of its Charter 
should be directed to Stephen P. Randolph, Executive Secretary, 
Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department 
of State, Office of the Historian, 2300 E Street NW., Washington, DC, 
20372 (Navy Potomac Annex), telephone (202) 955-0215 (email 
history@state.gov).

    Dated: January 28, 2015.
Stephen P. Randolph,
Executive Secretary, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-03312 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 299

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ‘‘Gerard A. Fiorenza 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, 

as the ‘‘Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. GERARD A. FIORENZA POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Gerard 

7 A. Fiorenza Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•HR 299 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Gerard A. Fiorenza 

3 Post Office Building.

Æ
<PAGE>



            FIRST AMENDMENT, dated July 19, 2000 (the "First Amendment"), to
EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT, dated as of June 14, 2000 (the "Agreement"), by
and between CALP II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (the "Investor") and JAGNOTES.COM INC.
(the "Company"). If not otherwise defined, capitalized terms used herein have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

            WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement to provide
for a minimum monthly Advance during the Commitment Period.

            NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

            1.1. Advances. Section 2.2(a) shall be amended by adding the
following sentence at the end thereof:

            Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the Maximum Advance
Amount, the Company may request an Advance of any amount up to and including
$350,000, net of the ten percent commission payable to Thompson Kernaghan & Co.,
Ltd. and The May Davis Group, Inc., in each Advance Notice delivered to the
Investor.

            1.2. Other Provisions. All other provisions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect without change.

            1.3. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in two or
more identical counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same
agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each
party and delivered to the other party.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been duly executed and
delivered by a duly authorized officer of each party hereto as of the date first
above written.

                                          CALP II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


                                                /s/  M. McKinnon
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               By: M. McKinnon
                                                   (On Behalf of VMH Investment
                                                    Management Group)


                                          JAGNOTES.COM INC.


                                          By:   /s/ Stephen Schoepfer
                                             -----------------------------------
                                               Name: Stephen Schoepfer
                                               Title:   Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alliance Financial Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack H. Webb, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 11, 2008



/s/ Jack H. WebbName:

Jack H. WebbTitle:

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer




-32-
[Miami Circuit Court,

October Term, 1893.]

#### SEARCH, ADMR. v. PENCE, ADMR.

For opinion in this case see 5 Ohio Circ. Dec., 689.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6,738
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            12,568
<OTHER-SE>                                        (19,306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (6,738)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (6,738)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (6,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
§ 222.83 Disposal of consumer information. ( a ) *Definitions as used in this section.* ( 1 ) *You* means member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than national banks) and their respective operating subsidiaries, branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than Federal branches, Federal agencies and insured State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.,* 611 *et seq.*).
( b ) *In general.* You must properly dispose of any consumer information that you maintain or otherwise possess in accordance with the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards, as required under sections 208.3(d) (Regulation H), 211.5(l) and 211.24(i) (Regulation K) of this chapter, to the extent that you are covered by the scope of the Guidelines.
( c ) *Rule of construction.* Nothing in this section shall be construed to: ( 1 ) Require you to maintain or destroy any record pertaining to a consumer that is not imposed under any other law; or
( 2 ) Alter or affect any requirement imposed under any other provision of law to maintain or destroy such a record.
SECOND AMENDMENT

                                       TO

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                       OF

                                 ROBERT VANNUCCI



         This SECOND AMENDMENT ("SECOND  AMENDMENT"),  dated as of July 1, 2002,
is made a part of that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), dated July 1,
1998, and the Amendment thereto,  dated October 1, 2000 (the "FIRST AMENDMENT"),
by and  between  RIVIERA  HOLDINGS  CORPORATION  ("RHC"),  and its  wholly-owned
subsidiary,  RIVIERA OPERATING CORPORATION ("ROC") (collectively the "COMPANY"),
and ROBERT VANNUCCI ("EXECUTIVE").

         The parties hereto agree to amend the AGREEMENT and the FIRST AMENDMENT
thereto as follows:

        1.        If during the Term of the Agreement, or any extension thereof,
                  WILLIAM L. WESTERMAN is no longer Chief  Executive  Officer of
                  the Company due to any reason  whatsoever,  or any shareholder
                  other than WILLIAM L.  WESTERMAN,  SUN AMERICA LIFE  INSURANCE
                  COMPANY or the RIVIERA  EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN acquires
                  ten  percent   (10%)  or  more  of  RHC  common   stock,   all
                  restrictions imposed upon EXECUTIVE's Restricted Stock awarded
                  pursuant  to  the   AGREEMENT   and  FIRST   AMENDMENT   shall
                  immediately  be  released  and  such  Restricted  Stock  shall
                  thereby   immediately   convert   to  common   stock  with  no
                  restrictions whatsoever.

        2.        In the event  there is a  conflict  between  the terms of this
                  SECOND AMENDMENT and the AGREEMENT and/or the FIRST AMENDMENT,
                  the terms of this SECOND AMENDMENT shall control.

        3.        Except as changed by this  SECOND  AMENDMENT,  all other terms
                  and  conditions  of the AGREEMENT  and FIRST  AMENDMENT  shall
                  remain in full force and effect.


         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  agreed to this SECOND
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT as of the day and year first written above.


COMPANY:                                    EXECUTIVE:

RIVIERA HOLDINGS CORPORATION                ROBERT VANNUCCI
and its wholly-owned subsidiary
RIVIERA OPERATION CORPORATION



By:______________________________           __________________________
     WILLIAM L. WESTERMAN                   ROBERT VANNUCCI
     Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.27

                AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 1 modifies the Management Agreement (the "Agreement") by
and between Alliance Imaging, Inc., ("Alliance") a Delaware corporation
located at 1065 PacifiCenter Drive, Suite 200, Anaheim, California 92806 and
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. ("Client") located at 2800 Sand Hill
Road, Suite 200, Menlo Park, California 94025 dated as of November 2, 1999.

The provisions of this Amendment shall become effective as of January 1, 2000
(the "Effective Date").

Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety and shall read
as follows:

1.   The Company has retained us, and we hereby agree to accept such
retention, to provide to the Company, when and if called upon, certain
management, business strategy, consulting services of the type customarily
performed by us. The Company agrees to pay us an annual fee of Six Hundred
Fifty Thousand dollars ($650,000), payable in quarterly installments in
arrears at the end of each calendar quarter.

Except as provided for above, no other change, amendment or modification of
the Agreement is hereby intended or implied.




ALLIANCE IMAGING, INC.                  KOHLBERG KRAVIS
                                        ROBERTS & CO., L.P.


Signature: /s/ RICHARD N. ZEHNER        Signature: /s/ MICHAEL W. MICHELSON
           -----------------------                 --------------------------

Printed:   Richard N. Zehner            Printed:   Michael W. Michelson
           -----------------------                 --------------------------

Title:     CEO                          Title:     Manager
           -----------------------                 --------------------------

Date:      8/1/00                       Date:      8/1/00
           -----------------------                 --------------------------
§ 348.6 General exemption. ( a ) *Exemption.* The FDIC may by agency order exempt an interlock from the prohibitions in § 348.3 if the FDIC finds that the interlock would not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition and would not present safety and soundness concerns.
( b ) *Presumptions.* In reviewing an application for an exemption under this section, the FDIC will apply a rebuttable presumption that an interlock will not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition if the depository organization seeking to add a management official: ( 1 ) Primarily serves low- and moderate-income areas;
( 2 ) Is controlled or managed by persons who are members of a minority group, or women;
( 3 ) Is a depository institution that has been chartered for less than two years; or
( 4 ) Is deemed to be in “troubled condition” as defined in § 303.101(c).
( c ) *Duration.* Unless a shorter expiration period is provided in the FDIC approval, an exemption permitted by paragraph (a) of this section may continue so long as it does not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition, or is unsafe or unsound. If the FDIC grants an interlock exemption in reliance upon a presumption under paragraph (b) of this section, the interlock may continue for three years, unless otherwise provided by the FDIC in writing.
( d ) *Procedures.* Procedures for applying for an exemption under this section are set forth in 12 CFR 303.249.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-05-19) Submitted: January 11, 2006 Decided: January 31, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Smith, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, John Eisinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Preston Cornelius Everett was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (Count 1) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 2). The Government timely filed notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) that it would be seeking an enhanced sentence in Count 1 because of Everett’s prior Virginia felony conviction for possession of cocaine. The court sentenced Everett to the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, based on his prior Virginia drug felony under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) for Count 1 and to sixty months consecutively on Count 2. On appeal, Everett alleges that his 240-month sentence for Count 1 violated: (1) the Sixth Amendment under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and (2) his due process rights. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Everett’s first claim fails because, as we recently held, the rule announced in Bookerdoes not apply to statutory mandatory minimum sentences. See United States v. Groce , 398 F.3d 679, 682 n.2 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that judicial determination of how a gun was used, which determines the mandatory minimum sentence in a 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violation, is not affected by Booker ); see also Harris v. United States , 536 U.S. 545, 568 (2002). Next, Everett argues that his due process rights were violated because use of his prior felony Virginia drug offense,- 3 - which would only have been a misdemeanor under federal law, significantly enhanced his sentence. Such due process claims are analogous to equal protection claims. See Chapman v. United States , 500 U.S. 453, 465 (1991); Jones v. United States , 463 U.S. 354, 362, n.10 (1983). We have rejected the argument that incorporating state definitions into the federal statutes violates the Equal Protection Clause. See United States v. Lender , 985 F.2d 151, 156 n.* (4th Cir. 1993). Thus, this claim fails. Accordingly, we affirm. 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