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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,616
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           896
<OTHER-SE>                                         720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,616
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (546)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Radtchenko Nickolay, Appellant, v Nassau County Sheriff’s Department, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Radtchenko Nickolay, Appellant, v Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Glenn Goord, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[698 NYS2d 508]

—In related proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Nassau County Sheriffs Department to credit 61 days of good time to the time served by the petitioner, Radtchenko Nickolay (Proceeding No. 1), and to compel the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the Nassau County Sheriffs Department to credit the same 61 days of good time (Proceeding No. 2), the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), entered June 28, 1999, which denied the petition in Proceeding No. 1, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also entered June 28, 1999, which denied the petition in Proceeding No. 2. The notices of appeal from an order dated November 6, 1998, in Proceeding No. 1 and an order dated April 9, 1999, in Proceeding No. 2 are treated as premature notices of appeal from the respective judgments *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to establish that the certification *292provided by the Sheriff of Nassau County pursuant to Correction Law § 600-a was improper (see, Penal Law § 70.30 [3]; *see also, Matter of Hawkins v Coughlin,*72 NY2d 158), or that the State Department óf Correctional Services improperly calculated the good behavior time to be credited to him (see, Correction Law § 803 [1]; Penal Law § 70.40 [1] [b]). Accordingly, the petitions were properly denied.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in view of our determination. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
§ 375.11 Other foreign civil aircraft. A foreign civil aircraft, including unmanned aircraft as defined in § 1.1 of this title, other than those referred to in § 375.10 may be navigated in the United States only when: ( a ) The operation is authorized by the Department under the provisions of this part, and
( b ) The aircraft complies with any applicable airworthiness standards of the Federal Aviation Administration for its operation.
[80 FR 78648, Dec. 16, 2015]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER O N M OTION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.M., Jr.
, A Child

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 28 6

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 8

- 0 1409J

Trial court: 3 15 th District Court of Harris Co unty

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”) for both the father, K.M., and the mother, D .M. , of K.M., Jr., a child. On May 7 , 201 9
, D .M.’s counsel filed

a n unopposed extension requesting twenty days from May 20, 2019.

Appeals in parental termination cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed

, so far as reasonably possible

. See T EX

. S T

. J UD

. A DMIN

. R. 6.2(a) (West 201 8 ). Here, the first notice of appeal was timely filed on A pril 9, 2019, in the trial court from the April 8, 2019 final decree for termination b y appointed counsel for the mother, D .M., set ting the 180

- day compliance deadline for October 4 , 201 9

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b).

Although this is D .M.’s counsel’s first extension and it is unopposed

, the accelerated schedule in termination cases requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines and greater scrutiny of extensions

. Appell ant D.M.’ s counsel contends that an extension is needed because he was recently appointed as co

- counsel in a different termination case with a jury trial set for May 17 and 20, 2019, which requires him to prepare for trial now, and he will need more time to file appellant’s brief in this case after finishing th at trial

. According ly

, appell ant D .M. ’s motion for an extension of time to file appell ant ’s brief is GRANTED until J une 10 , 201 9 , but no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4.1(a), 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Laura Carter Higley

____________________ ☒ Acting individually Acting for the Court Date:

___ May 14, 2019

________
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the use of our report dated October 30, 2003 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Amdocs
Limited included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September
30, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and incorporated by
reference in the following registration statements:

                              COMMISSION FILE NO.

                            Form S-8, No. 333-91847
                            Form S-8, No. 333-92705
                            Form S-8, No. 333-31506
                            Form S-8, No. 333-34104
                            Form S-8, No. 333-58454
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-39278
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-44994
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-57036
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-67572

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
December 24, 2003
§ 60.37 FSTD qualification on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). ( a ) The evaluation and qualification of an FSTD by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation for the sponsor of an FSTD located in that contracting State may be used as the basis for issuing a U.S. statement of qualification (see applicable QPS, attachment 4, figure 4) by the responsible Flight Standards office to the sponsor of that FSTD in accordance with— ( 1 ) A BASA between the United States and the Contracting State that issued the original qualification; and
( 2 ) A Simulator Implementation Procedure (SIP) established under the BASA.
( b ) The SIP must contain any conditions and limitations on validation and issuance of such qualification by the U.S.
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461, 71 FR 63426, Oct. 30, 2006, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 60-7, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          36,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (570)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,824
<PP&E>                                          21,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,227)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,962
<BONDS>                                          7,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,693
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,447)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,648)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,057)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,472)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.88)


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

-- )

)

John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. )

)

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Arnie B. Mason

, Esq.

Melisa A. Roy

, Esq.

Williams Mullen PC

Tysons Corner, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Ellen M. Evans, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The se appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 2 2 , 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61243, 61244, 61 24 5

, 61425,

61426, Appeals of John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s

Charter.

Dated: April 22, 2020 ASBCA Nos. 61243, 61244, 61 24 5

61425, 61426

Under Contract No. N40080

- 10

- D

- 0492

DONALD E. KINNER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
### SERVED: JANUARY 15, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF STARJET, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-1115 (Civil Penalty Action)



### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP230019) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List. 

# (

**~-----------Y'--__...._...---..._** Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative La\\'Judge Attachment
- Service List

... **-~1**SERVICE LIST - BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY 

### Pekka Karu, President/Director ofOperations Starjet, Inc., Respondent 26 Washington Blvd., 2nd Floor MarinaDel Rey, CA 90292 TEL: 310-301-9325 FAX: 310-301-1556 LisaJ. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P. 

### 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-1115 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 2
§ 61.197 Renewal requirements for flight instructor certification. ( a ) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate that has not expired may renew that flight instructor certificate by— ( 1 ) Passing a practical test for— ( i ) One of the ratings listed on the current flight instructor certificate; or
( ii ) An additional flight instructor rating; or
( 2 ) Submitting a completed and signed application with the FAA and satisfactorily completing one of the following renewal requirements— ( i ) A record of training students showing that, during the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt.
( ii ) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has served as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or part 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots.
( iii ) A graduation certificate showing that, within the preceding 3 calendar months, the person has successfully completed an approved flight instructor refresher course consisting of ground training or flight training, or a combination of both.
( iv ) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check in an aircraft for which the military instructor already holds a rating or in an aircraft for an additional rating.
( b ) The expiration month of a renewed flight instructor certificate shall be 24 calendar months from— ( 1 ) The month the renewal requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are accomplished; or
( 2 ) The month of expiration of the current flight instructor certificate provided— ( i ) The renewal requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are accomplished within the 3 calendar months preceding the expiration month of the current flight instructor certificate, and
( ii ) If the renewal is accomplished under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, the approved flight instructor refresher course must be completed within the 3 calendar months preceding the expiration month of the current flight instructor certificate.
( c ) The practical test required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be accomplished in a full flight simulator or flight training device if the test is accomplished pursuant to an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 25910, 63 FR 20289, Apr. 23, 1998, as amended by Amdt. 61-124, 74 FR 42562, Aug. 21, 2009; Amdt. 61-142, 83 FR 30279, June 27, 2018]
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00284-CV

JOEL H. DOWNS,

Appellant

v.

FIRST BANK & TRUST,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-C-3239

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joel H. Downs appeals from a judgment rendered against him and issued on June

1, 2016. By letter dated September 12, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified Downs that 

his original filing fee for the appeal was past due. Downs was warned in the same letter 

that failure to pay the filing fee within 10 days from the date of the letter would result in 

the appeal being dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). More than 10 days have passed, 

and Downs has failed to pay his original filing fee. 
Downs v. First Bank & Trust Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Id.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed September 28, 2016

[CV06]
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PHILIPPE VEETERS NO. 

### 2022 KW 0467 

### MAY 05, 2022

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. DC -19-07235. BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

STAY DENIED. 

### WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The trial court' s order is modified to provide that the subpoenas duces tecum issued for the listed records of the victims named 

## in the bill of information for the period of June 6, 2018 to the 

## present be produced for in camera inspectionbythetrial court. In all other respects, 

### the writ application is denied. JMG GH WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# Uk

DEPUTY CL RK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2299

OMAR M. RUIZ ACOSTA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: July 2, 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, 

Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. Spurlock, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Omar M. Ruiz Acosta, a native and citizen of El 

Salvador, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

decision denying relief from removal. Acosta asserts that the 

IJ erred and violated his right to due process in pretermitting 

his application for cancellation of removal. We have reviewed 

these claims and the administrative record and conclude that 

they are without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (2006). 

Next, Acosta contends that the IJ erred in finding that Acosta 

abandoned the potential relief of voluntary departure. Our 

review discloses that Acosta failed to meet a specific deadline 

set by the IJ for identifying the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the IJ properly exercised his discretion in finding the 

application waived. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (2010).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 10.28



BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009



For fiscal year 2009, beginning on December 29, 2008, the compensation for the directors who are not our employees was determined to be as set forth below. The cash fees are annual amounts payable quarterly. The annual equity grants will be issued immediately following election at the annual shareholders meeting.



Description

        

        FY 2009Board equity grants (chair and non-chair)RSUs fully vested*

        

        $

        60,000Board feesChair

        

        $

        40,000Non-chair

        

        $

        20,000Compensation Committee feesChair

        

        $

        16,000Non-chair

        

        $

        8,000Governance/Nominating Committee feesChair

        

        $

        10,000Non-chair

        

        $

        8,000Audit Committee feesChair

        

        $

        16,000Non-chair

        

        $

        8,000Executive Committee feesChair

        

        $

        5,000Non-chair

        

        $

        4,000Compliance Committee feesNon-chair

        

        $

        8,000




*

        RSUs for the number of shares equal to $60,000 divided by the current stock price.








---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,557
<SECURITIES>                                10,654
<RECEIVABLES>                                  968
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (30)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,759
<PP&E>                                       7,595
<DEPRECIATION>                              (4,254)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,969
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 10,036
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,833
<SALES>                                      2,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,490
<CGS>                                       (1,891)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               (1,891)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (3,785)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (115)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                   (1,225)
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.47)


</TABLE>