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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  XXXXXX
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-02-1995             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          22,619                  22,619
<SECURITIES>                                     4,500                   4,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,611                  46,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,760                  86,760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,335                 169,335
<PP&E>                                         101,217                 101,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,415                 319,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,499                  92,499
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<COMMON>                                        18,997                  18,997
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   319,415                 319,415
<SALES>                                        107,441                 298,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,045                 302,467
<CGS>                                           77,261                 208,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,261                 208,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,694                  68,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,707                   7,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,383                  17,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,707                   7,356
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,552                   5,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,552                   5,698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41                    1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41                    1.50
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 19-2448: BECK v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CANON U.S.A., INC., GOPRO, INC., GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN USA, INC.,

Appellees

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________

2020-1947

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00127.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

RANDALL T. GARTEISER, Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, 

TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL 

SCOTT FULLER, CHRISTOPHER A. HONEA; KIRK ANDERSON, 

Budo Law PC, Arvada, CO; PETER JOSEPH CORCORAN, III, 

Corcoran IP Law PLLC, Texarkana, TX.

Case: 20-1947 Document: 117 Page: 1 Filed: 10/14/2022
 JARED WESTON NEWTON, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all appellees. 

Appellee Canon U.S.A., Inc. also represented by RYAN SETH 

GOLDSTEIN, Los Angeles, CA.

 KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN, KXT Law, LLP, Redwood 

City, CA, for appellee GoPro, Inc.

 JENNIFER C. BAILEY, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, 

for appellees Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. 

Also represented by ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ.

 JOSHUA K. HANDELL, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, MELISSA N. PATTERSON; SARAH E. CRAVEN,

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MONICA BARNES LATEEF, FARHEENA 

YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

October 14, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1947 Document: 117 Page: 2 Filed: 10/14/2022
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00209

- CV

Alex E. Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC , Appellant s

v.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis , Appellee s

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 18

- 001835 , THE HONOR A B LE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
PER CURIAM The parties have fil ed an agreed motion to abate this appeal , requesting that we
abate so that t hey can focus on resolving issues in th e bankruptcy court that coul d obviate further proceedings in this cause. We grant the motio n in part and abate the appeal. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 2, 42.1(a)(2)(c). The parties shall submi t a status report or a motion to dismiss on or before September 1 6 , 202 4

. The appeal will remain a bated until further order of this Court.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices S mith and Theofanis
Abated
Filed: May 23, 2024
§ 301-70.301 What governing policies must we establish for payment of miscellaneous expenses? You must establish policies and procedures governing: ( a ) Who will determine when excess baggage is necessary for official travel;
( b ) When you will pay for communications services, including whether you will pay for a telephone call to the employee's home or place where the employee's dependent children are;
( c ) Who will determine if other miscellaneous expenses are appropriate for reimbursement in connection with official travel, including but not limited to, fees for the use of automated teller machine (ATMs) when using the Government contractor-issued travel charge card and expenses for laundry, cleaning, and pressing of clothing.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2016-02, 81 FR 63136, Sept. 14, 2016]
**EXHIBIT        32**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

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

| Dated:  November                  8, 2007 | By:    | /s/                  Elmer N. Baldwin    |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   | Elmer                  N. Baldwin        |
|                                                |   | Chief                  Executive Officer |
|                                                |   |                                     |
| Dated:  November                  8, 2007 | By:    | /s/                  David J. Steichen   |
|                                                |   | David                  J. Steichen       |
|                                                |   | Chief                  Financial Officer |
fy16vcpexhibita1to922res







P. 1 Superior Reliability & Performance Coherent Confidential Do Not Copy, Reproduce or Distribute Exhibit A-1:  FY16 VCP Bonus Criteria Bonus  Weighting Threshold VCP 0% At Target  VCP 100% At Maximum VCP 200% Comments Revenue – 1st half 25% $386.0M      0% $410.9M     25% $436.0M     50%  Payout capped at 100% until pre-VCP EBITDA $ target is met Revenue – 2nd half  25%  $409.0M      0% $435.7M     25% $462.0M     50% Payout capped at 100% until pre-VCP EBITDA $ target is met Pre-VCP EBITDA $ - 1st half 75% $69.0M      0% $84.1M    75% $99.3M    150%    Pre-VCP EBITDA $ - 2nd half 75%  $81.0M      0% $96.2M    75% $111.3M    150% For purposes of the VCP, “adjusted EBITDA” (or Pre-VCP EBITDA) is defined as operating income adjusted for VCP payouts, depreciation, amortization, stock compensation expense, major restructuring charges and certain non-operating income or expense items.   Two performance metrics are measured and paid out independently: • Adjusted EBITDA$ weighted 75% • Revenue weighted 25%  Semi-annual plan, bonus based on 1st half and 2nd half published results.
# Comments on: 20-1350: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
§ 0.606 Procedures for closing a meeting to the public. ( a ) For every meeting closed under § 0.603, the General Counsel will certify that there is a legal basis for closing the meeting to the public and will state each relevant provision of § 0.603. The staff of the agency will refer the matter to the General Counsel for certification before it is referred to the agency for a vote on closing the meeting. Certifications will be retained in a public file in the Office of the Secretary.
( b ) The agency will vote on the question of closing a meeting. ( 1 ) If a member of the agency requests that a vote be taken;
( 2 ) If the staff recommends that a meeting be closed and one member of the agency requests that a vote be taken; or
( 3 ) If a person whose interests may be directly affected by a meeting requests the agency to close the meeting for any of the reasons listed in § 0.603 (e), (f) or (g), or if any person requests that a closed meeting be opened, and a member of the agency requests that a vote be taken. (Such requests may be filed with the Secretary at any time prior to the meeting and should briefly state the reason(s) for opening or closing the meeting. To assure that they reach the Commission for consideration prior to the meeting, they should be submitted at the earliest practicable time and should be called specifically to the attention of the Secretary—in person or by telephone. It will be helpful if copies of the request are furnished to the members of the agency and the General Counsel. The filing of a request shall not stay the holding of a meeting.)
( c ) A meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to § 0.603 only by vote of a majority of the entire membership of the agency. The vote of each participating Commissioner will be recorded. No Commissioner may vote by proxy.
( d ) A separate vote will be taken before any meeting is closed to the public and before any information is withheld from the meeting notice. However, a single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings proposed to be closed to the public, and with respect to information concerning such series of meetings (a vote on each question, if both are presented), if each meeting involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no later than 30 days after the first meeting in the series.
( e ) Less than seven days notice may be given only by majority vote of the entire membership of the agency.
( f ) The subject matter or the determination to open or close a meeting will be changed only if a majority of the entire membership of the agency determines by recorded vote that agency business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible.
[42 FR 12867, Mar. 7, 1977, as amended at 71 FR 15618, Mar. 29, 2006]
#### IN THE MATTER OF NANCY B. STOUGH.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 756)

(386 SE2d 663)

Decided November 9, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

Nancy B. Stough, a member of the State Bar of Georgia, has petitioned the State Disciplinary Board for voluntary suspension of her license to practice law on the ground of her conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia of two felonies involving moral turpitude and constituting grounds for disbarment under Standard 66 of Rule 4-102 of Part IV, Chapter 1 of the State Bar Rules.

Pursuant to State Bar Rule 4-106, a lawyer convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude may be suspended from the practice of law until all appeal rights are terminated. The court, pursuant to State Bar Rule 4-106 and upon the recommendation of the special master, accepts Ms. Stough’s petition for voluntary suspension from the practice of law pending termination of her appeal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

*Voluntary suspension of license is accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
440P15

#### Lewis Junior Jenkins v. Harnett County District Court, Jacqualyn L. Lee, Judge Faircloth

Pit’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4000** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. KEVIN LAMONT JACKSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distri ct of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:09

- cr - 00282

- GRA

- 3 )

Submitted : August 11, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Lamont Jackson appeals from the fifty

- seven month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. We previously remanded this case for the district court to addr ess Jackson’s arguments for a below

- Guidelines sentence and provide individualized reasoning for the sentence imposed . On remand, the court considered the parties’ arguments and again imposed a fifty

- seven month sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred by failing to apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of resentencing. The Governm ent has declined to file a brief, and Jackson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a careful review of the record, we affirm. Jackson asserts that the district court erred by not applying the Guidelines in effect at the time of Jackson’s

res entencing. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g) (2006) explicitly states that, when resentencing after appellate remand, a district court should apply the sentencing guidelines “that were in effect on the date of the previous sentencing of the defendant prior to the appeal.” See also United States v.3 Bordon , 421 F.3d 1202, 1206

- 07 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, this claim is without merit. Our review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals no meritorious claims. Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s sentence. Th is court requires that counsel inform Jackson in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jackson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then c ounsel may motion this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel ’ s motion must state that a co py thereof was served on Jackson
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.10003 When can I start operating?

You can begin operating your facility or providing services once we grant your application to do so, under the conditions set forth in your license or authorization.
§ 302-3.305 Who is not eligible for SES separation relocation expense allowances? You are not eligible for SES separation relocation expense allowances if: ( a ) You are a career appointee to an SES position, and your appointment is a limited term, limited emergency, or a noncareer appointment. (See 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(5) through (7)); or
( b ) You are an appointee to the Government but do not meet the criteria status within § 302-3.304.
EXHIBIT 32.0



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Andrea Electronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2003 |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 



36
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16201]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / 
Notices

[[Page 39347]]



AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

PLACE: ADF Headquarters.

DATE: Tuesday, 27 June 2000.

STATUS: Open.

Agenda

1:00 p.m.  Chairman's Report
1:30 p.m.  President's Report
2:30 p.m.  New Business
3:00 p.m.  Adjournment

    If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to Dick 
Day, Coordinator, Office of Policy, Planning and Outreach, who can be 
reached at (202) 673-3916.

William R. Ford,
President.
[FR Doc. 00-16201 Filed 6-22-00; 2:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RENARDO FERGUSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-97

[May 4, 2016]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 07008939CF10A and 07013853CF10A.

Renardo Ferguson, Lake City, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See McLendon v. State, 58 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA

2011) (breach of a plea agreement does not render sentence illegal, and 

claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800 (a)). 

WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 60-300.68 Reinstatement of ineligible contractors. ( a ) *Application for reinstatement.* A contractor debarred from further contracts for an indefinite period under the Act may request reinstatement in a letter filed with the Director at any time after the effective date of the debarment; a contractor debarred for a fixed period may make such a request following the expiration of six months from the effective date of the debarment. In connection with the reinstatement proceedings, all debarred contractors shall be required to show that they have established and will carry out employment policies and practices in compliance with the Act and this part. Additionally, in determining whether reinstatement is appropriate for a contractor debarred for a fixed period, the Director also shall consider, among other factors, the severity of the violation which resulted in the debarment, the contractor's attitude towards compliance, the contractor's past compliance history, and whether the contractor's reinstatement would impede the effective enforcement of the Act or this part. Before reaching a decision, the Director may conduct a compliance evaluation of the contractor and may require the contractor to supply additional information regarding the request for reinstatement. The Director shall issue a written decision on the request.
( b ) *Petition for review.* Within 30 days of its receipt of a decision denying a request for reinstatement, the contractor may file a petition for review of the decision with the Secretary. The petition shall set forth the grounds for the contractor's objections to the Director's decision. The petition shall be served on the Director and the Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and Labor-Management and shall include the decision as an appendix. The Director may file a response within 14 days to the petition. The Secretary shall issue the final agency decision denying or granting the request for reinstatement. Before reaching a final decision, the Secretary may issue such additional orders respecting procedure as he or she finds appropriate in the circumstances, including an order referring the matter to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for an evidentiary hearing where there is a material factual dispute that cannot be resolved on the record before the Secretary.