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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,292
<PP&E>                                           5,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,254
<SALES>                                         87,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,616
<CGS>                                           52,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (158)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,049
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
§ 102-33.220 What are the responsibilities of our aviation program in justifying the use of a Government aircraft to transport passengers? After receiving a request from your agency, your aviation program's responsibilities in justifying the use of a Government aircraft to transport passengers are to your travel approving authority: ( a ) Cost estimates to assist in determining whether or not use of a Government aircraft to carry passengers is justified. See OMB Circular A-126 (*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb*) for more information on justifying travel on Government aircraft. See also FTR §§ 301-10.260 through 301-10.266, and 301-70.800 through 301-70.808, and 301-70.910 (41 CFR 301-10.260 through 301-10.266, 301-70.800 through 301-70.808, and 301-70.910) for guidance on estimating the cost of using a Government aircraft. The cost of using a Government aircraft is— ( 1 ) The variable cost of using a Federal aircraft;
( 2 ) The amount your agency will be charged by a CAS provider; or
( 3 ) The variable cost of using an aircraft owned by another agency as reported by the owning agency; and
( b ) Information to assist in the analysis of alternatives to travel on Government aircraft. The information must include the following: ( 1 ) If no follow-on trip is scheduled, all time required to position the aircraft to begin the trip and to return the aircraft to its normal base of operations;
( 2 ) If a follow-on trip requires repositioning, the cost for the repositioning should be charged to the associated follow-on trip;
( 3 ) If an aircraft supports a multi-leg trip (a series of flights scheduled sequentially), the use of the aircraft for the total trip may be justified by comparing the total variable cost of the entire trip to the commercial aircraft cost (including charter) for all legs of the trip; and
( 4 ) The use of foreign aircraft as CAS is authorized when the agency has determined that an equivalent level of safety exists as compared to U.S. operations of a like kind. The safety of passengers shall be the overriding consideration for the selection of travel mode when comparing foreign sources of scheduled commercial airlines and CAS.
#### § 102-37.210 Must a SASP make a drug-free workplace certification when requesting surplus property for donation?

No, you must certify that you will provide a drug-free workplace only as a condition for retaining surplus property for SASP use. Drug-free workplace certification requirements are found at part 105-68, subpart 105-68.6, of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 31, 2000, and by letter 
dated April 14, 2000, Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1401 Duff Drive, 
Suite 600, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524, made application to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of carfentanil (9743), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to manufacturer the listed controlled substance for 
distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacturer such substance may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than August 21, 2000.

    Dated: June 7, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-15689 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 10.10.3

               THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE STRATEGIC MODELING AGREEMENT


         THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE STRATEGIC MODELING AGREEMENT ("Amendment") dated
as of August 16, 2001, among BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS EXPRESS, INC., a Delaware
corporation ("BTE"), and THE CREDIT STORE INC., a Delaware corporation ("TCS").

         WITNESSETH, THAT:


         WHEREAS, BTE and TCS entered into a Strategic Modeling Agreement on the
18th day of March, 1999 ("Agreement), Amendment to the Strategic Modeling
Agreement on the 16th day of March 2001, and Second Amendment to the Strategic
Modeling Agreement on the 29th day of May 2001;

         WHEREAS, the Agreement, as amended, is set to terminate on August 16,
2001; and

         WHEREAS, The parties desire to amend their Agreement to extend the
Agreement term for a period of one month (1) month.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         Section 1. Third Amendment to the Strategic Modeling Agreement.

               (a)  The "Data Processing Term" definition is amended in its
            entirety to read as follows:

                    "Data Processing Term" means the period beginning on the
            date hereof and ending at 11:59 p.m. on September 16, 2001."

               (b)  The "Modeling Term" definition is amended in its entirety to
            read as follows:

                    "Modeling Term" means the period beginning on the date
            hereof and ending at 11:59 p.m. on September 16, 2001."

         Section 2. Counterparts; Effectiveness. This Amendment may be executed
in any number of counterparts, and by different parties hereto in separate
counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an
original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.



<PAGE>


         Section 3. Affirmation. The parties hereto affirm and acknowledge that
the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is, and remains, in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms.


               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment
to be duly executed by their duly authorized representative as of the day and
year first above written.

                                    BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS EXPRESS, INC.


                                    By --------------------------------------
                                       Its:



                                    THE CREDIT STORE, INC.


                                    By --------------------------------------
                                       Kevin T. Riordan
                                       Its: President
EX-10.1



 



 
 Exhibit 10.1 

2017 Named Executive Officer Compensation 
  

															
	 Name
	  	Base Salary
(Annual Rate) (1)	 	  	Target Performance
Bonus
(% of Base Salary) (2)	 	Options
Granted (3)	 	  	RSUs
Awarded (4)	 
	 Lisa D. Earnhardt
	  	$	540,000	  	  	75%	 	 	252,000	  	  	 	54,000	  
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  				  		 				  			
					
	 Jeryl L. Hilleman
	  	$	367,900	  	  	45%	 	 	70,000	  	  	 	15,000	  
	 Chief Financial Officer
	  				  		 				  			
					
	 Richard E. Kaufman
	  	$	342,900	  	  	35%	 	 	42,000	  	  	 	9,000	  
	 Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	  				  		 				  			
					
	 James W. Stambaugh
	  	$	290,000	  	  	35%	 	 	52,500	  	  	 	11,300	  
	 Vice President, Clinical Affairs
	  				  		 				  			

  

	(1)	Effective January 1, 2017. 


	(2)	The actual bonus to be awarded will be at the Compensation Committee’s discretion based on the Company’s performance against financial and clinical milestone objectives as determined by the Compensation
Committee. 


	(3)	Granted by the Compensation Committee on January 18, 2017. The exercise price per share of such option grant is $13.05, the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on the date
of grant. The shares subject to each option will vest commencing January 1, 2017 in equal monthly installments over four years following a six month cliff vesting period, except for Mr. Stambaugh’s whose vesting will commence on
March 1, 2017. 


	(4)	Granted by the Compensation Committee on January 18, 2017. Restricted stock units will vest commencing January 1, 2017 in equal annual installments over three years, except for Mr. Stambaugh’s whose
vesting will commence on March 1, 2017.
Rockingham

No. 79-146

#### The State of New Hampshire v. William Josselin

December 28, 1979

*Thomas D. Rath,*attorney general *(Paul W. Hodes,*attorney, orally), for the State.

*McSwiney, Jones & Semple,*of Concord *(Paul C: Semple*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant was found guilty of four drug offenses following a trial by jury. He raised the defense of entrapment and objects now to certain rulings as well as to the trial court’s jury instructions regarding entrapment and reasonable doubt. The case was transferred here by *Mullavey,*J.

The defendant asks this court to review rulings excluding testimony of a police informant’s wife. Apparently the husband asserted the marital privilege. RSA 516:27. The record reflects that then defense counsel took no exception to this exclusionary ruling. We recently reminded the bar in *Martineau v. Perrin,*119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979), that our procedural requirement of a contemporaneous objection and exception is “grounded on judicial economy and common sense.” *Id.*at 532, 404 A.2d at 1102. The rule *937applies in all criminal or civil cases. *See Sperl v. Sperl,*119 N.H. 818, 408 A.2d 422 (1979).

 This rule applies with equal force to the trial court’s jury-instructions. In this appeal, new defense counsel attempts to raise issues regarding the court’s entrapment and reasonable doubt instructions. After the judge instructed the jury, he inquired if counsel cared to approach the bench. The then defense trial counsel said “Nothing.” in response to the court’s invitation. We thus have neither an objection nor an exception. We will not bend our requirement so that new counsel can comb the record on a “treasure hunt” for issues never properly brought before the trial judge. *See Martineau v. Perrin,*119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979).

*Exceptions overruled.*

King, J., did not sit.
§ 102-2.20 Which agencies are subject to the FMR? The FMR applies to executive agencies unless otherwise extended to Federal agencies in various parts of this chapter. The difference between the two terms is that Federal agencies include executive agencies plus establishments in the legislative or judicial branch of the Government. See paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for the definitions of each term. ( a ) *What is an executive agency?* An executive agency is any executive department or independent establishment in the executive branch of the Government, including any wholly-owned Government corporation. (See 40 U.S.C. 472(a).)
( b ) *What is a Federal agency?* A Federal agency is any executive agency or any establishment in the legislative or judicial branch of the Government (except the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol and any activities under that person's direction). (See 40 U.S.C. 472(b).)
Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries of the Registrant,  Cosmoz.com,  Inc. as of August 15,
2000


================================================================================
                                                            Name Under Which
Subsidiary Name and Address      State of Incorporation   Business is Conducted
================================================================================
FinancialContent.com, Inc.
c/o Cosmoz.com, Inc., 1515 So. El
Camino Real, Ste. 100,
San Mateo, CA 94402                        DE              FinancialContent.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
C/O COSMOZ.COM, INC., 1515 SO. EL
CAMINO REAL, STE. 100,
SAN MATEO, CA 94402                        IN              MB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITRACK, INC.
C/O COSMOZ.COM, INC., 1515 SO. EL
CAMINO REAL, STE. 100,
SAN MATEO, CA 94402                        DE              ITRACK.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING FINE, INC.
C/O COSMOZ.COM, INC., 1515 SO. EL
CAMINO REAL, STE. 100,
SAN MATEO, CA 94402                        IN              KING FINE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREETIQ.COM, Inc.
c/o Cosmoz.com, Inc., 1515 So. El
Camino Real, Ste. 100,
San Mateo, CA 94402                        DE              STREETIQ.COM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCKINVESTOR.COM, INC.
C/O COSMOZ.COM, INC., 1515 SO. EL
CAMINO REAL, STE. 100,
SAN MATEO, CA 94402                        NC              BUCKINVESTOR.COM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROFITWIRE, INC.
C/O COSMOZ.COM, INC., 1515 SO. EL
CAMINO REAL, STE. 100,
SAN MATEO, CA 94402                        DE              PROFITWIRE.com
================================================================================
#### § 101-29.216 Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards (DODISS).

The *Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards* is a Department of Defense (DoD) publication of unclassified Federal and military specifications and standards, related standardization documents, and voluntary standards that are used by DoD.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING SEMI-REDACTED VERSION OF 

ECF No. 118-1 IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER (ECF No. 160)

Defendants the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury, in compliance 

with the Court’s Order on Motion to Seal (ECF No. 160), give notice of filing of the semiredacted version of Charles Littlejohn’s deposition transcript that was previously filed as ECF 

No. 118-1. 

Dated: June 20, 2024 DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Mary Elizabeth Smith 

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Maryland Bar No. 0712110235 

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096 

BEATRIZ T. SAIZ

New Jersey Bar No. 024761995 

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14198 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

202-307-2089 (v) | 202-514-4963 (f) 

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@usdoj.gov 

Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov 

Beatriz.T.Saiz@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for the United States

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2024 Page 1 of 3
2

Of counsel:

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

United States Attorney

Southern District of Florida

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2024 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 20, 2024, I filed a copy of the foregoing document with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to counsel of record. 

Mary Elizabeth Smith

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Trial Attorney

 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Division 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2024 Page 3 of 3
§ 101-30.103-2 Agency responsibilities. ( a ) Each civil agency shall: ( 1 ) Participate in the preparation and maintenance of the civil agency portion of the Federal Catalog System and in the conversion to and utilization of this system, and
( 2 ) Comply with the policies, principles, rules, and procedures of the Federal Catalog System as prescribed in this part 101-30.
( b ) Adherence by the Department of Defense to the single supply catalog system developed for the military departments under chapter 145, title 10, U.S. Code, shall be deemed to constitute full coordination of cataloging activities with GSA.
§ 102-36.130 What are our responsibilities in processing transfer orders of excess personal property? Whether the excess is for your use or for use by a non-federal recipient that you sponsor, you must: ( a ) Ensure that only authorized federal officials of your agency sign the SF 122 prior to submission to GSA for approval.
( b ) Ensure that excess personal property approved for transfer is used for authorized official purpose(s).
( c ) Advise GSA of names of agency officials that are authorized to approve SF 122s, and notify GSA of any changes in signatory authority.
§ 102-37.435 For what purposes may donees acquire and use surplus property? A donee may acquire and use surplus property only for the following authorized purposes: ( a ) *Public purposes.* A public agency that acquires surplus property through a SASP must use such property to carry out or to promote one or more public purposes for the people it serves.
( b ) *Educational and public health purposes, including related research.* A nonprofit educational or public health institution must use surplus property for education or public health, including research for either purpose and assistance to the homeless or impoverished. While this does not preclude the use of donated surplus property for a related or subsidiary purpose incident to the institution's overall program, the property may not be used for a nonrelated or commercial purpose.
( c ) *Programs for older individuals.* An entity that conducts a program for older individuals must use donated surplus property to provide services that are necessary for the general welfare of older individuals, such as social services, transportation services, nutrition services, legal services, and multipurpose senior centers.
Editorial Note on Part 96
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 96 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36281, June 25, 2010, and by USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38432, July 7, 2014.

§ 96.495 How can I appeal a decision made by an authorized organization? ( a ) A responsible person may appeal a decision made by an authorized organization by mailing or delivering to the organization a written request for reconsideration. Within 30 days of receiving your request, the authorized organization must rule on it and send you a written response. They must also send a copy of their response to the Commandant (CG-CVC), Attn: Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501.
( b ) If you are not satisfied with the organization's decision, you may appeal directly to Commandant (CG-CVC). You must make your appeal in writing, including any documentation and evidence you wish to be considered. You may ask Commandant (CG-CVC) to stay the effect of the appealed decision while it is under review.
( c ) The Commandant (CG-CVC) will make a decision on your appeal and send you a response in writing. That decision will be the final Coast Guard action on your request.
[CGD 95-073, 62 FR 67506, Dec. 24, 1997, as amended by USCG-2011-0257, 76 FR 31836, June 2, 2011]
Exhibit 32 (a)







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 this Yearly Report of New Mexico Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard F. Govatski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Richard F. Govatski


Richard F. Govatski


Chief Executive Officer





April 27, 2010
§ 102-74.390 What is the policy concerning disturbances? All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on property that— ( a ) Creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;
( b ) Unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots;
( c ) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employees; or
( d ) Prevents the general public from obtaining the administrative services provided on the property in a timely manner.