alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(a)


                      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is entered into
as of April 7, 1999, between JACOBSON STORES INC., a Michigan corporation of
Jackson, Michigan (the "Company"), and P. GERALD MILLS, of Chelsea, Michigan
("Mills").

         THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE that the restated Employment Agreement
between them dated as of June 11, 1998 (the "Agreement"), is amended
effective April 11, 1999, as follows:

         1. Employment and Term. The date "April 15, 2000" in paragraph 1 of
the Agreement is amended to read "April 15, 2001".

         2. Compensation. The phrase "Three Hundred Thousand Dollars
($300,000)" in paragraph 2 of the Agreement is amended to read "Three Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000)".

         3. Change in Control. The figure "40%" appearing twice in paragraph
5(e)(iii)(1) and once in paragraph 5(e)(iii)(3) of the Agreement is amended
to read "20%".

         Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.


IN THE PRESENCE OF:                     JACOBSON STORES INC.


    /s/ Dana J. Collins                 By:    /s/ Paul W. Gilbert
---------------------------------           --------------------------------
                                            Paul W. Gilbert
                                            Its:  Vice Chairman of the Board


   /s/  Timothy J. Spalding                /s/  P. Gerald Mills
 --------------------------------       ------------------------------------
                                        P. Gerald Mills
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Acknowledge a Batch 

To upload a batch(es), complete the following steps:

1. From the Check Processing tab, click Upload Batch. An Online Authentication dialog box 

appears.

Determine if your terminal is connected to the online OTCnet server, refer to the 

Connection Status indicator located on the top-right of the page. If the Connection Status 

is green, the terminal is connected to the online OTCnet server. If the Connection Status 

indicator is red, the terminal is not connected to the online OTCnet server.

2. Select the batch(es) you want to acknowledge by checking the box(es) under the Select 

column as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Select Batches to Acknowledge

3. Click Acknowledge Batch. The Review the Batch(es) to be Acknowledged page appears.

4. Verify that you want to receive acknowledgement for the selected batch(es) and click 

Submit. The Batch Acknowledgement dialog box appears.

5. Click Close. The Acknowledge Batch Confirmation page appears with the batch details of 

which batches successfully/failed to receive acknowledgement. 

Application Tip
No. 52943.

#### The Joseph Abrams Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 109493-K, etc. (San Francisco).

*264Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the September

28, 2006, order by the undersigned denying his request for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order filed May 5, 2006, denying his motion to re-open discovery.

After reviewing plaintiff’s pleading, the court finds that his October 11, 2006,

motion for reconsideration is without merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 11, 2006,

motion for reconsideration is denied; the September 28, 2006, order (# 107) is affirmed.

DATED: November 17, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 113 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 1
is generally ignored in business accounting 


100 Gal 

New Solvent 

(Solvent Vapor) 

1000 Gal 

50 Gal 

(Solvent Vapor) 

900 Gallons 

(drag out) 

Waste Water 

5850 Gal 

5000 Gal 
123456789

10





4000 Gal 

50 Ga! 

3950 Gal 


New 

360 Gal 

50 Gal 

3950 Gal 




123456789

10
123456789

10123456789

10
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Nexicon, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Date:     February 10, 2006                    NEXICON, INC.

                                               By: /s/ Daniel Urrea
                                                   Daniel Urrea
                                                   Chief Financial Officer and
                                                   Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Nexicon, Inc. and will
be retained by Nexicon, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 8, 2006 and published in the Federal 
Register on November 17, 2006, (71 FR 66974), Kenco VPI, Division of 
Kenco Group Inc., 350 Corporate Place, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37419, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as an importer of Nabilone (7379), a basic class 
of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for 
distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of Kenco VPI to import the basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States 
obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in 
effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Kenco VPI to 
ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 
958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company 
is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled 
substance listed.

    Dated: February 16, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-3298 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7601

MICHAEL E. GARNER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:18

- cv - 00560

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : May 20, 2020 Decided: June 10, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael E. Garner , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael E. Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction and the calculation of his good time credits. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain in terlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp ., 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.”
P orter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of Garner’s claims. Specifically, the court did not adjudicate Garner’s claim that his du e process rights were violated during the prison disciplinary hearing and the administrative appeals process because he was denied witnesses and documentary evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the order Garner seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore grant Garner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. Id . at 699. We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA PHILLIPS, 

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-1257-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 7, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01257-GEB-GGH Document 30 Filed 06/26/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 7, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Dated: June 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01257-GEB-GGH Document 30 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6832
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID ALLEN WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-6, CA-03-188-7) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We find the court properly construed Wilson’s filings as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). This court may grant a certificate of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 (2003). We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
April 17, 1958

No. 61845.

#### Sciaky Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 227393-K.

C. D. 1972. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
*No.*64092.

protest 59/13362 (San Francisco).

#### Rene D. Lyon Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# Natural Gas

View Hist ory: Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)



## Created with Highcharts 3.0.10Million Cubic FeetU.S. Natural Gas Gross

WithdrawalsU.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals

19401950196019701980199020002010010,000,00020,000,00030,000,00040,000,000

U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals Year : 196417,535,553 Million C ubic FeetSource:

U.S. Energy Information Administration

U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

Decade Year

- 0 Year

- 1 Year

- 2 Year

- 3 Year

- 4 Year

- 5 Year

- 6 Year

- 7 Year

- 8 Year

- 9

1930's 2,691,512 3,084,567 3,108,858 3,387,095

1940's 3,752,702 4,168,116 4,525,095 5,024,449 5,708,288 6,000,161 6,293,037 6,733,230 7,178,777 7,546,825

1950's 8,479,650 9,689,372 10,272,566 10,645,798 10,984,850 11,719,794 12,372,905 12,906,669 13,146,635 14,229,272

1960's 15,087,911 15,460,312 16,038,973 16,973,368 17,535,553 17,963,100 19,033,839 20,251,776 21,325,000 22,679,195

1970's 23,786,453 24,088,031 24,016,109 24,067,202 22,849,793 21,103,530 20,943,778 21,097,071 21,308,815 21,883,353

1980's 21,869,692 21,587,453 20,272,254 18,659,046 20,266,522 19,606,699 19,130,711 20,140,200 20,999,255 21,074,425

1990's 21,522,622 21,750,108 22,132,249 22,725,642 23,580,706 23,743,628 24,113,536 24,212,677 24,108,128 23,822,711

2000's 24,173,875 24,500,779 23,941,279 24,118,978 23,969,678 23,456,822 23,535,018 24,663,656 25,636,257 26,056,893

2010's 26,816,085 28,479,026 29,542,313 30,171,367

- = No Data Reported;

-- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

Release Date: 5/30/2014

Next Release Date: 6/30/2014

Referring Pages:



###  Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals



###  U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production



###  Total Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Summary)



### 
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Nelson A. Locke, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Amstar Financial Services, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 5, 2008

/s/Nelson A. Locke
------------------------
Nelson A. Locke
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,127,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,783,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                   590,841
<INVENTORY>                                 23,425,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,240,009
<PP&E>                                       5,192,067
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,253,122
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,372,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,819,230
<BONDS>                                     47,144,009
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,366
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,229,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,372,269
<SALES>                                     38,319,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,319,517
<CGS>                                       23,532,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,532,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,692,412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,956,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,192,786
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,367,753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,825,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,825,033
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131963 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131963 

 COA: 270964 

Eaton CC: 00-020302-FC 

NICHOLAS MONROE SWINT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s1220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 29, 2006 

Clerk
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

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

ROBERT RAMESES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RAMESES,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY LACEY, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. S-04-1173 GEB GGH P

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED REQUEST

TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE JOINT

SCHEDULING STATEMENT

Judge: Hon. Gregory G. Hollows

Pursuant to the unopposed request of petitioner, and good cause

appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that the joint scheduling

statement be filed on or before July 6, 2005.

DATED: 6/7/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________________ 

 HONORABLE GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

rame1173.eot05

Case 2:04-cv-01173-GEB -GGH Document 21 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 46111.

#### Protest 39750-K of Lithuanian-American Import & Export Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.