alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 



        First
Amendment, dated as of December 14, 2006 (the “Amendment”), to the Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
among TierOne Corporation and James A. Laphen (the “Executive”). 



WITNESSETH 



        WHEREAS,
 pursuant  to Section 26 of the  Agreement,  the  parties to the  Agreement  desire to
modify the Agreement; 




        NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual agreements herein set forth and
such other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows: 



        1.       Section
9(b)(ix). Section 9(b)(ix) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in           its
entirety.  




        2.       Effectiveness.
This Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date           first above written, as
if executed on such date. Except as expressly set forth           herein, this Amendment
shall not by implication or otherwise alter, modify,           amend or in any way affect
any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants           or agreements contained in
the Agreement, all of which are ratified and affirmed           in all respects and shall
continue in full force and effect and shall be           otherwise unaffected.  




        3.       Governing
Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in           accordance with
the laws the State of Nebraska, except to the extent that           federal law controls.  




        4.       Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts,           each of which shall
for all purposes be deemed an original, and all of which           together shall
constitute but one and the same instrument.  












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





		TIERONE CORPORATION
	
Attest:
	

/s/ Judith A. Klinkman	By: /s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom
	Name:  Judith A. Klinkman	      Name:  James A. Laphen
	Title:  Assistant Secretary	      Title:  Chairman of the Board and
		                  Chief Executive Officer
	

Attest:
	

/s/ Judith A. Klinkman	/s/ James A. Laphen
	Name:  Judith A. Klinkman	Name:  James A. Laphen, Executive
	Title:  Assistant Secretary
No. 11-8787.

#### Clyde *v.*New York.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-rari denied.
countyIDfuelYearIDmonthGroupIDfuelFormulationIDmarketSharemarketShareCV

11172012 1 20011 1 0.5 11172012 1 3910 1 0.5 11172012 2 3910 1 0.5 11172012 2 20011 1 0.5 11172012 3 20011 1 0.5 11172012 3 3927 1 0.5 11172012 4 3927 1 0.5 11172012 4 20011 1 0.5 11172012 5 20011 1 0.5 11172012 5 3927 1 0.5 11172012 6 3928 1 0.5 11172012 6 20011 1 0.5 11172012 7 20011 1 0.5 11172012 7 3928 1 0.5 11172012 8 3928 1 0.5 11172012 8 20011 1 0.5 11172012 9 20011 1 0.5 11172012 9 3928 1 0.5 11172012 10 3927 1 0.5 11172012 10 20011 1 0.5 11172012 11 20011 1 0.5 11172012 11 3927 1 0.5 11172012 12 3910 1 0.5 11172012 12 20011 1 0.5
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2113: In Re KILLIAN [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TvPQZJnrJu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-23-2022-21-2113-in-re-killian-opinion-21-2113-opinion-8-23-2022_1994643\/\">21-2113: In Re KILLIAN [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-23-2022-21-2113-in-re-killian-opinion-21-2113-opinion-8-23-2022_1994643\/embed\/#?secret=TvPQZJnrJu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2113: In Re KILLIAN [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"TvPQZJnrJu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: In Re KILLIAN [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2113 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 54.902 Calculation of CAF BLS Support for transferred exchanges. ( a ) In the event that a rate-of-return carrier receiving CAF BLS acquires exchanges from an entity that also receives CAF BLS, CAF BLS for the transferred exchanges shall be distributed as follows: ( 1 ) Each carrier may report its updated line counts to reflect the transfer in the next quarterly line count filing pursuant to § 54.903(a)(1) that applies to the period in which the transfer occurred. During a transition period from the filing of the updated line counts until the end of the funding year, the Administrator shall adjust the CAF BLS Support received by each carrier based on the updated line counts and the per-line CAF BLS, categorized by customer class and, if applicable, disaggregation zone, of the selling carrier. If the acquiring carrier does not file a quarterly update of its line counts, it will not receive CAF BLS for those lines during the transition period.
( 2 ) Each carrier's projected data for the following funding year filed pursuant to § 54.903(a)(3) shall reflect the transfer of exchanges.
( 3 ) Each carrier's actual data filed pursuant to § 54.903(a)(4) shall reflect the transfer of exchanges. All post-transaction CAF BLS shall be subject to true up by the Administrator pursuant to § 54.903(b)(3).
( b ) In the event that a rate-of-return carrier receiving CAF BLS acquires exchanges from an entity receiving frozen support, model-based support, or auction-based support, absent further action by the Commission, the exchanges shall receive the same amount of support and be subject to the same public interest obligations as specified pursuant to the frozen, model-based, or auction-based program.
( c ) In the event that an entity other than a rate-of-return carrier acquires exchanges from a rate-of-return carrier, absent further action by the Commission, the carrier will receive model-based support and be subject to public interest obligations as specified in § 54.310.
( d ) This section does not alter any Commission rule governing the sale or transfer of exchanges, including the definition of “study area” in part 36 of this chapter.
[81 FR 24343, Apr. 25, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 25163, Apr. 10, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR VANADIUM INTERNATIONAL, INC. A
DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              91
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    91
<PP&E>                                         100,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,610
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (67,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (67,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
§ 27.1321 Requirements for operation of base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band in close proximity to Radio Astronomy Observatories. ( a ) Licensees must make reasonable efforts to protect the radio astronomy observatory at Green Bank, WV, Arecibo, PR, and those identified in § 15.712(h)(3) of this chapter as part of the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) from interference.
( b ) 600 MHz band base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band within 25 kilometers of VLBA observatories are subject to coordination with the National Science Foundation (NSF) prior to commencing operations. The appropriate NSF contact point to initiate coordination is: Division of Astronomical Sciences, Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Unit, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Email: *esm@nsf.gov .*
( c ) Any licensee that intends to operate base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band in locations near the Radio Astronomy Observatory site located in Green Bank, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, or near the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, must comply with the provisions in § 1.924 of this chapter.
[79 FR 48538, Aug. 15, 2014. Redesignated at 81 FR 4975, Jan. 29, 2016; 85 FR 38740, June 26, 2020]
No. 11-9904.

#### Stewart et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 65.800 Rate base.

The rate base shall consist of the interstate portion of the accounts listed in § 65.820 that has been invested in plant used and useful in the efficient provision of interstate telecommunications services regulated by this Commission, minus any deducted items computed in accordance with § 65.830.
| 1) | to      the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | to      the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of      operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date      :  May      15, 2009 | By:  /s/ Linden    Boyne |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                     | Linden      Boyne                  |
|                                     | Secretary      / Treasurer         |
|                                     | (Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IKONICS
Corporation.

Date: May 13, 2004                         /s/ William C. Ulland
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           William C. Ulland
                                           Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
                                           and President


Date: May 13, 2004                         /s/ Jon Gerlach
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Jon Gerlach
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           and Vice President of Finance
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ernesto CHAVEZ-REYES, a/k/a Fernando, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7932.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

*37Ernesto Chavez-Reyes, Appellant pro se.

Arnold L. Husser, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Chavez-Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chavez-Reyes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
No. 11-5579.

#### Babakaeva *v.*Wilson & Wilson, P. C.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
| 1) | to      the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | to      the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of      operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date      :  November 15, 2009 | By:  /s/ Lee J.    Cole |   |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                                     | Lee      J. Cole                  |
|                                     | Executive      Officer            |

----
§ 304-5.5 May we authorize an employee to use other than coach class accommodations on common carriers if we accept payment in full from a non-Federal source for such transportation expenses? Yes, you may authorize an employee to use other than coach class accommodations on common carriers as long as the: ( a ) Non-Federal source makes full payment for such transportation services in advance of travel; and
( b ) Transportation accommodations furnished are comparable in value to those offered to, or purchased by other similarly situated meeting attendees; and
( c ) Travel meets at least one of the conditions in § 301-10.103 of this title.
[FTR Amdt. 2009-06, 74 FR 55151, Oct. 27, 2009, as amended by 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55707, Sept. 12, 2022]
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 60-1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart A appear at 85 FR 71570, Nov. 10, 2020.

#### § 60-1.2 Administrative responsibility.

The Director has been delegated authority and assigned responsibility for carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the Secretary under the Executive order. All correspondence regarding the order should be directed to the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

[43 FR 49240, Oct. 20, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 66971, Dec. 22, 1997]
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of DirectorsMossimo, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement (No. 333-10071) on Form S-8of Mossimo, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2005, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of Mossimo, Inc. as of December 31,2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended  December 31, 2004,which report appears in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-Kof Mossimo, Inc.
| /s/ KPMG LLP            |
|-------------------------|
| Los Angeles, California |
| March 31,  2005    |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY C. CROUCH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR91-397, CA-94-3237-3-19BC, CR-91-310) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary C. Crouch, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Crouch , Nos. CR-91-397; CR-91-310; CA-94-3237-3-19BC (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 1995). 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
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 02 3

- 0917

_____________________________
R ICHARD A. O LIVER , Appellant,

v.

M ELINDA E. O LIVER , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. William F. Stone
, Judge

. December 28, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Richard A. Oliver , pro se, Appellant.

Aaron B. Wentz and Kelly A. Simon of Aaron B. Wentz, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for Appe llee.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2






                            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 Annual Report of SCB Computer Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J. Boling, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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.


July 28, 2002



By:     /s/  Michael J. Boling
       ---------------------------
            Michael J. Boling
         Executive Vice President,
   Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
#### § 42.2 Designation of a supervisory official.

Each carrier subject to the regulations in this part shall designate one or more officials to supervise the preservation of its records.
§ 67.2 Minimum Functionalities of RTT. ( a ) *RTT-RTT Interoperability.* Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be interoperable with other services and devices that support RTT in accordance with this part. A service or authorized end user device shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph (a) if: ( 1 ) It is an RFC 4103-conforming end user device;
( 2 ) RTT communications between such service or end user device and an RFC 4103-conforming service or end user device are reliably and accurately transcoded— ( i ) to and from RFC 4103, or
( ii ) to and from an internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon with the owner of the network serving the RFC 4103-conforming service or device.
( b ) *RTT-TTY Interoperability.* Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be interoperable with TTYs connected to other networks. Covered services and authorized end user devices shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph (b) if communications to and from such TTYs: ( 1 ) Pass through an RFC 4103-TTY gateway, or
( 2 ) are reliably and accurately transcoded to and from an internetworking protocol mutually agreed-upon with the owner of the network serving the TTY.
( c ) *Features and Capabilities.* Covered services and authorized end user devices shall enable the user to: ( 1 ) Initiate and receive RTT calls to and from the same telephone numbers for which voice calls can be initiated and received;
( 2 ) transmit and receive RTT communications to and from any 911 public safety answering point (PSAP) in the United States; and
( 3 ) send and receive text and voice simultaneously in both directions on the same call using a single device.