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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Jostens Inc. consolidated financial statements as of and for the six months 
ended December 28, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 114,198 
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (6,884) 
<INVENTORY>                                    98,493 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              247,817       
<PP&E>                                        210,925      
<DEPRECIATION>                              (143,282)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                381,208      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         243,108    
<BONDS>                                         3,881  
<COMMON>                                       12,888 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     99,725       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  381,208         
<SALES>                                       277,118          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              277,118          
<CGS>                                         141,493          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 141,493          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              131,473       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (4,330)       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    26       
<INCOME-TAX>                                      829      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (803)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (803) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02) 
        

</TABLE>
exv4w3






EXHIBIT 4.3






	CUSIP 52602E 10 2





 









 













	. LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES INC. THE COMPANY WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH SHAREHOLDER WHO
SO REQUESTS, THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL
RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. ANY SUCH REQUEST SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF LENDER
PROCESSING SERVICES INC. OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT NAMED ON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE. The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN
COM — as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT — as tenants by the
entireties under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) JT TEN — as joint tenants with right of
survivorship UNIF TRF MIN ACT Custodian (until age) and not as tenants in common (Cust)
(Minor) under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used
though not in the above list. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock represented by the
within Certificate; and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said
stock on the books of the within named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated: 20 Signature(s) Guaranteed: Medallion Guarantee Stamp THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED
BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit
Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C.
RULE 17Ad-15. Signature: Signature: Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond with
the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or
enlargement, or any change whatever.
NO. 07-02-0028-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A APRIL 9, 2002

______________________________ STEVEN MORSE, APPELLANT

V. TEXAS DEPARTME NT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE CO UNTY COURT AT LAW #2 OF MONT GOMERY COUNT Y; NO. 01-15,854; H ONORABLE JER RY WINFREE, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant

Steven Mor

se filed a Moti on to Dismiss Appeal on April 8, 2002, aver ring that he no longer

wishes to prosecute his appeal. The Motion to D ismiss issigned by both appellant and his

attorney. Without passing on the merits of the c ase, appellant’ s motion for v oluntary di smissal is granted and th e appeal is her eby dismis sed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed2

the appeal at appell ant’s personal request, nomotion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate wi ll issue fort hwith. Phil Johnson Justice

Do not publish .
No. 46682.

#### Protests 2207-K, etc., of Seaboard Lumber Sales Co., Ltd. (Boston).

*414Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained to that extent.
Amendment to YRC Worldwide Inc. Supplemental Executive Pension Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT 
 YRC WORLDWIDE INC. 
 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE PENSION PLAN 
 (Effective January 1, 2005) 

 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by YRC Worldwide Inc. (the
“Company”) this 1st day
of July, 2008. 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the YRC Worldwide Inc. Supplemental Executive Pension Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of the employees of the Company and its participating affiliates;

 WHEREAS, Section 5.1 of the Plan provides that the Company, through action of its Board of Directors or the Board of Directors
delegated representative, may amend the Plan at any time; 
 WHEREAS, the Company has determined to amend the Plan to freeze future
benefit accruals; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company agrees that the Plan is amended, effective July 1, 2008, as set forth
below: 
 1. Add the following sentence to the end of Section 2.1: 
 Notwithstanding any other provision in the SEPP to the contrary, no Eligible Employee shall become a Participant on or after July 1, 2008.

 2. Add new Section 3.1(viii) at the end of Section 3.1 immediately following Section 3.1(vii): 
 (viii) notwithstanding any other provision in the SEPP to the contrary, taking into account that the Participant’s benefit under the Underlying
Pension Plans and the Transferee SRP ceased accruing (i.e., were frozen) immediately prior to July 1, 2008. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor has caused this Agreement to be executed on the 1st day of July, 2008.

  

			
	YRC WORLDWIDE INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Harold D. Marshall

		 	Harold D. Marshall,
		 	Vice President-Employee Benefits
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LAWRENCE CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (CITY OF PHILADELPHIA),

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 357 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/1/2023 1

Challenging an Age Restriction 

for the Office of Mayor 

McClafferty v. Portage County Board of Elections 

(Sara Lioi, N.D. Ohio 5:09-cv-2210) 

A twenty-one-year-old prospective candidate for mayor challenged 

a requirement that a mayor be at least twenty-three years of age, 

which was established after the plaintiff performed well in a mayoral 

election at the age of nineteen. Observing that the next election arose 

before the plaintiff turned twenty-three only because of a resignation, the district court denied the plaintiff immediate relief. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

ballot language. 

On September 24, 2009, a twenty-one-year-old prospective candidate for 

mayor of Streetsboro, seeking to fill a vacancy arising from a resignation, filed 

a federal complaint in the Northern District of Ohio against the city and Portage County’s board of elections challenging a requirement adopted in 2007 

that legislative and executive officers in Streetsboro be at least twenty-three 

years of age, a requirement adopted after the plaintiff came within one vote of 

the eventual winner in a primary election for mayor.1 With his complaint, the 

plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction.2

Judge Sara Lioi conducted a telephone conference with the parties on the 

day that the complaint was filed and set the case for hearing five days later.3

On September 30, Judge Lioi denied the plaintiff immediate relief, noting that 

when the age restriction was adopted the next mayoral election was expected 

to be in 2011, when the plaintiff would have been old enough to be elected 

mayor.4

1. Complaint, McClafferty v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 5:09-cv-2210 (N.D. Ohio 

Sept. 24, 2009), D.E. 1; McClafferty v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections, 661 F. Supp. 2d 826, 829 

(N.D. Ohio 2009); see Streetsboro Amendment Challenged, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 26, 

2009, at B5; Troubled Streetsboro Mayor Resigns, Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 2, 2009, at B3. 

2. Motion, McClafferty, No. 5:09-cv-2210 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2009), D.E. 2; McClafferty, 

661 F. Supp. 2d at 829. 

3. Order, McClafferty, No. 5:09-cv-2210 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2009), D.E. 5 (specifying issues for the hearing); Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 24, 2009); McClafferty, 661 F. Supp. 2d at 829; 

see Docket Sheet, supra (order eliminating the temporary-restraining-order portion of the 

pending motion); Withdrawal Motion, McClafferty, No. 5:09-cv-2210 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 

2009), D.E. 4. 

4. McClafferty, 661 F. Supp. 2d 826.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3965 

To appropriate funds to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the deployment of nonintrusive inspection technology at the southern land border 

of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate funds to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

for the deployment of nonintrusive inspection technology 

at the southern land border of the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deploy Fentanyl Scan5 ners Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3965 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION OF AMOUNTS TO INSTALL NON2 INTRUSIVE INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY AT 

3 THE SOUTHERN BORDER. 

4 There are appropriated, out of any money in the 

5 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to U.S. Customs 

6 and Border Protection $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2024 

7 for the deployment of nonintrusive inspection technology 

8 at the southern land border of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a ) 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN

Washington corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

CALIFORNIA MICRO COMPUTERS, INC., )

a/k/a CA-MICRO a/k/a ADVANCED )

CONCEPTS, a California corporation;)

and JAMES R. SCOTT, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA MICRO COMPUTERS, INC., )

a/k/a CA-MICRO a/k/a ADVANCED )

CONCEPTS, a California corporation;)

and JAMES R. SCOTT, an individual, )

)

Defendants and )

Third Party Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

GLOBAL TRADING INTERNATIONAL, )

INC., COMPWAVES, )

)

Third Party Defendants. )

)

On July 21, 2005, a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice

and a Proposed Order were filed, in which the stipulating parties

erroneously assume the federal court will retain jurisdiction to

enforce a “Settlement Agreement and Release between Microsoft and

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN Document 31 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants” which the undersigned judge has not seen. However,

Defendants are dismissed from Microsoft’s Complaint with prejudice as

the parties requested in the July 21 Stipulation, and the Court

retains jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ “Stipulated Permanent

Injunction” which was filed July 21, 2005, and executed by the

undersigned Judge on September 28, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN Document 31 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN CHRISTMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0884 FCD PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He filed a complaint May 4, 2004. On December 13, 2004, defendants filed a motion to

dismiss, which the court denied July 25, 2005. On August 16, 2005, defendants filed an answer.

On May 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice stating he intends to reject all correspondence from the

court “until further notice.” On May 9, 2006, mail was returned to the court with the notation

“RTS, Inmate Refused.” On May 18, 2006, mail was returned to the court with the notation,

“returned to sender - inmate refused.”

It appears plaintiff intends to abandon this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 67 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 24, 2006.

\004

\chri0884.57

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 67 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8153)

#### Mailliard & Schmiedell et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 101, etc.

*460(Decided July 25, 1952)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney *General'(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

OlivbR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked *“A”*on the invoices and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to the imported merchandise, marked “A” in paragraph I, when sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> 3) That all other claims of the plaintiffs, as raised by these appeals, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these cases are submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, and that such values were the appraised values, less the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 60040.

#### Dodge & Olcott, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 252211-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mandarin oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Fritzsche Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 90, C. D. 1134), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Douglas M.Schirle, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of GSI Technology, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  June 20, 2007
| /s/ Douglas M. Schirle     | * * |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Douglas M. Schirle,        | * * |
| *Chief  Financial Officer* | * * |

 

----