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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          62,898
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,541
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             50,547
<PP&E>                                          11,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 627,247
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     110,053
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               1,031
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           899
<OTHER-SE>                                     483,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   627,247
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                   62
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             1,819
<COMMISSIONS>                                   36,525
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   60,349
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    7,833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                  64,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,109
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,109
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,501
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
#### THE TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE, IN THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE BOARD OF HEALTH OF NEPTUNE, PROSECUTORS, v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

Argued October term, 1928

Decided December 6, 1928.

Before Justices Mintujin, Black and Campbell.

Por the prosecutors, *Cook £ Stout.*

Por the defendant, *Durand, Ivins £ Carton.*

Per Curiam.

A rule to show cause why a writ of *certiorari*should not he granted in this cause was duly allowed, and the case has been considered in connection with (¡ase number 224 of this term.

The rule was granted for the purpose of reviewing an ordi*6nance alleged to have been passed and adopted by the board of. commissioners of the city of Asbury Park, on the 12th day of June, 1928. The title of the ordinance is “An ordinance authorizing and providing for the construction of a building and necessary apparatus and equipment, for use as an incinerating plant for the purification and disposal of garbage, trash and other waste matter, making an appropriation therefor, and authorizing the issuance of temporary improvement notes or bonds to pay for the same.”

The prosecutor and the defendant are neighboring municipalities in Monmouth county, and the defendant Asbury Park owns a tract of land in Neptune township which it acquired some years ago, and upon which it has erected and maintains an isolation hospital. Joint conferences were held by both the municipalities on the question of the point of location of the incinerating plant on the lands of the defendant and the matter of constructing a new roadway to the location. The reasons assigned by the prosecutors' are four in number, but they all relate to the cognate question and may be considered under the contention that Asbury Park never obtained the consent of the township of Neptune to build an incinerating plant for the purification of garbage, &c., within the territorial limits of Neptune township, and the ordinance is therefore *ultra vires.*

Briefs on both sides have discussed the merits of this legal proposition at some length, but we do not find it necessary, as we view the case, to do more than state that the state of the case shows that the ordinance was approved on second reading June 12th, 1928 *(Exhibit A,*state of the case, pages 5 and 6), with the date for final reading and passage fixed for June 26th, 1928.

We do not find anything in the record which would lead us to infer that the ordinance was taken up and considered by reading and finally passed on June 26th, the day to which the matter was adjourned for final passage. Our inference from the record therefore is that the ordinance was never finally passed and that the application for this writ is therefore premature and must be denied.

The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


(Incentive Stock Option)


 


This
Amendment No. 1 to Stock Option Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of January 25,
2005 by and between Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., an Oregon corporation
(the “Company”), and Nicholas
Konidaris (“Optionee”).  The Company and Optionee are parties to a
Stock Option Agreement dated as of July 13, 2004 (the “Original Agreement”).  Capitalized terms in this Amendment which are
not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Original
Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the usual promises hereinafter set forth, the
parties hereto agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.                                       A
new paragraph is inserted at the end of the Original Agreement to read in its
entirety as follows:


 


“The Board of Directors,
in its discretion, may accelerate the vesting of any of the shares subject to
the option (the “Accelerated Shares”), in which event the Accelerated Shares
shall be restricted upon exercise, with the restriction to lapse with respect
to 3,921 Accelerated Shares on each Full Vest date following the date of
acceleration (by way of example, if the vesting of all of Optionee’s unvested
options is accelerated effective August 1, 2005, the restriction on
3,921 of the Accelerated Shares would lapse on July 13, 2005, the
restriction on another 3,921 of the Accelerated Shares would lapse on July 13,
2006, the restriction on another 3,921 of the Accelerated Shares would
lapse on July 13, 2007 and the restriction on the remaining Accelerated
Shares would lapse on July 13, 2008); provided, further, that such
restrictions shall lapse upon any event under the Employment Agreement that
would have caused the option to become immediately exercisable prior to the
acceleration described in this section. 
For purposes of this section, the restriction on the Accelerated Shares
prohibits Optionee from selling, assigning, pledging, or in any manner
transferring such restricted Accelerated Shares, or any right or interest in
such restricted Accelerated Shares, whether voluntarily or by operation of law,
or by gift, bequest or otherwise.  Any
sale or transfer, or purported sale or transfer, of restricted Accelerated
Shares, in violation of this provision shall be null and void.”


 


2.                                       Except
as set forth in Section 1 hereof, the terms of the Original Agreement are
unchanged and remain in full force and effect.


 


(Signature pages follow)


 


1





















 


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


 


	
  COMPANY:

  	
  ELECTRO
  SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: John D/ Tompkins

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Chairman

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  OPTIONEE:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Nicholas
  Konidaris

  
					



 


2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY TO REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,170
<ALLOWANCES>                                       319
<INVENTORY>                                      5,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,388
<PP&E>                                          25,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,227
<BONDS>                                         37,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,104
<SALES>                                         64,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,391
<CGS>                                           27,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,866
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,191
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (888)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
        


</TABLE>
# C_2014462EN.01000201.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission

(Case C-417/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - EAGGF - Setting-aside of land - Remote-sensing controls - Green cover of parcels set aside - Financial corrections))

(2014/C 462/02)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Pinborg and P. Biering, advokaterne)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent, assisted by T. Ryhl, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Ree and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by U. Persson, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.

1

---
Presidential Documents

26705 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 90 

Thursday, May 10, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8140 of May 7, 2007 

Mother’s Day, 2007 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Motherhood is one of the most cherished and valued roles in our society. 

On Mother’s Day, we pay tribute to these dedicated women who give unconditional love and guidance to their children. 

A mother’s work requires extraordinary patience and compassion, and her 

example influences the formation of young lives. President Gerald Ford 

wrote that ‘‘there is no undertaking more challenging, no responsibility 

more awesome, than that of being a mother.’’ Mothers make great sacrifices 

and serve as caregivers and role models to help their children embrace 

dreams and aspirations. From these remarkable women, children learn character and values, the importance of giving back to their communities, and 

the courage to realize their potential. Mothers of military personnel provide 

support and encouragement while their sons and daughters defend our freedom in places far from home, and many mothers bring honor to the uniform 

of the United States while working to lay the foundations of peace for 

generations to come. 

The bond between mothers and their children is one defined by love. As 

a mother’s prayers for her children are unending, so are the wisdom, grace, 

and strength they provide to their children. On Mother’s Day, we are reminded of the great debt we owe to our Nation’s mothers for their love 

and devotion to their sacred duty. 

To honor mothers, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 8, 

1914, as amended (38 Stat. 770), has designated the second Sunday in 

May each year as ‘‘Mother’s Day’’ and has requested the President to call 

for its appropriate observance. Throughout the year, and especially on this 

day, America’s sons and daughters honor our mothers and celebrate their 

selfless gift of love. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim May 13, 2007, as Mother’s Day. I encourage 

all Americans to show their gratitude and love to mothers for making a 

difference in the lives of their children, families, and communities. I call 

upon citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, 

and activities. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES6
26706 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day 

of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence 

of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 

[FR Doc. 07–2355 

Filed 5–9–07; 10:51 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES6GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
# C_2012025EN.01005801.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/58

---

Action brought on 8 November 2011 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO)

(Case T-580/11)

(2012/C 25/111)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: McNeil AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alkalon ApS (Copenhagen V, Denmark)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in case R 1582/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in case R 1582/2010-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant its costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant its costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NICORONO’, for goods in classes 5, 10 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 6654529

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2190239 of the word mark ‘NICORETTE’, for goods in classes 5, 10 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75, 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal has failed to give sufficient weight in the overall assessment to: (i) the identity of the goods concerned and the fact that this offsets a lesser degree of similarity between the marks to be compared; (ii) the fact that consumers normally perceive word marks as a whole and pay particular attention to the beginning of a mark; and (iii) the fact that the applicant’s mark ‘NICORETTE’ has enhanced distinctiveness and an extensive reputation through significant use.

---
Exhibit 32.1

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

January 6, 2012

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

i.       that this annual  report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.      that information contained in the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations  of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles T.   Chrietzberg, Jr.  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Charles T.   Chrietzberg, Jr.           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                      |
|   | and President                                |

 

8

----
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 020

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NURCA MELVA CABRERA,

Plaintiff, Case no. 15-10714

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The court, pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S. C.

636(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(E.D. Mich. March 1, 2010), has reviewed Magistrate Judge R. Steven

Whalen’s February 29, 2016 Report and Recommendation. Upon reviewing the entire matter; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent that the case

is REMANDED for further fact-finding, consistent with Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s

Report and Recommendation.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: March 22, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on this date,

March 22, 2016, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

5:15-cv-10714-JCO-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 623
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20615

Summary Calendar

OSCAR L. SHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

VERNON K. PITTMAN, Major, JASON COLLIER; M. DODSON, Captain;

W. DOSSEY; UNKNOWN ERDMAN; JOSEPH C. KOVACS; 

UNKNOWN ASCHBER; F. E. FIGUEROA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3780)

April 30, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar L. Shaw, Texas prisoner # 646048, filed a § 1983 action

against numerous officials of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice in which he made the following complaints: the defendants

(1) unlawfully disciplined him on three occasions, (2) retaliated
2 The magistrate judge’s order expressly stated that “failure

to comply as directed may result in the dismissal of this action.”

3 See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988).

2

against him for filing a civil action, (3) denied him access to the

law library and indigent supplies, and (4) delayed reordering his

medications. The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred

ordered Shaw to file a more definite statement and to respond to

the order within 30 days. Shaw did not comply with the order.

Almost five months later, the district court dismissed Shaw’s

original complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the

magistrate judge’s order.2 Shaw timely filed notice of the present

appeal. We affirm.

The district court allowed Shaw approximately five months to

file a more definite statement. He did not do so, even though the

magistrate judge expressly cautioned him against such delinquency.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

Shaw’s claim without prejudice for failing to comply with the order

to file a more definite statement.3

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.8
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   
    
    our auditors report dated February 11, 2011 on the consolidated balance sheets of
Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) as at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the consolidated
statements of earnings, shareholders equity, comprehensive income, accumulated other
comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
December 31, 2010,
    
    our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 11, 2011 in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
States), and
    
    our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 11, 2011 on
the Corporations internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010,