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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERNET SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF AND
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,593
<SECURITIES>                                   110,670
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                       999
<INVENTORY>                                      1,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,003
<PP&E>                                          25,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,534
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,295
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,802
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,796
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,006
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed December 15, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00122-CR

____________

REGINALD TYRRELL PRICE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1268303

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the 

voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of 

law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not 

request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 ' 6 

(Vernon 2005); Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute 

is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct 
2

the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; 

Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The State filed a motion to 

abate, which is granted.

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this Court on or before 

January 5, 2012.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court’s 

findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
No. 46136.

#### Protests 653819-G, etc., of American Overocean Corp. et al. (Philadelphia) .

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the cotton rags in question are the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *Schapiro*(24 C. C. P. A. 343, T. D. 48771). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1750 was therefore sustained.
dnow-ex1015_316.htm



 

EXHIBIT 10.15

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated effective as of November 2, 2016, by and among DNOW L.P., a Texas limited partnership (the “Company”), NOW Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NOW”), and _____________________________ (the “Executive”), amends the current employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) by and among the Company, NOW and the Executive.

1.Confidential Information.  The following paragraph is added to the end of Section 7 of the Employment Agreement:

“Despite the confidentiality obligations specified above, Executive understands that neither this Agreement nor any other agreement or policy of the Company restricts or prohibits Executive from making the following disclosures: (a) disclosures of any information to or any complaint regarding suspected unlawful activity regarding any law, regulation, or program administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including the recovery of any amounts under any SEC programs, or (b) any disclosures made as part of any whistleblower or similar protected activity involving the reporting of suspected unlawful behavior.  Executive understands that he/she is not required to notify the Company regarding any of these allowed reports or disclosures.”

2.No Other Modification. Except as stated above, the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.  All of the terms and laws governing the Employment Agreement will govern this Amendment.

[Signature Page Follows]

 

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set the Executive’s hand and, pursuant to the authorization from NOW’s Board of Directors, each of NOW and the Company has caused these presents to be executed in its name on its behalf, all as of the day and year first above written.

 


	
DNOW L.P.
	
 
	
 

	
by its general partner
	
 
	
 

	
Wilson International, Inc.
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
NOW Inc.
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Executive
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Name:
Before the Second Division,

May 5, 1953

No. 57304.

protests 166194-K, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of abrasive sludge similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons*(40 C. C. P. A. 14, C. A. D. 491), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1664 was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

April 30, 1948

No. 52299.

protests 910560-G and 910564-G (New York).

#### Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30241

Conference Calendar

 

JOSEPH BENNETT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State 

Penitentiary; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney

General, State of Louisiana,

Respondents-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2166-L

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Bennett, Louisiana prisoner # 122501, was convicted

by a jury of second degree murder. Bennett appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district

court granted Bennett’s request for a certificate of

appealability (COA). His request for a COA is construed as a

notice of appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his

habeas petition. See Stevens v. Heard, 674 F.2d 320, 323 (5th

Cir. 1982). 
No. 98-30241

-2-

Bennett challenges the state trial and appellate courts’

determinations that Brandy Ferdinand’s testimony regarding her

five-year-old sister Irma Ferdinand’s statements about their

mother’s death constituted an exception to hearsay. Federal

habeas courts do not reexamine state-court determinations of

questions of state law, and this court is limited to deciding

whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties

of the United States. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991). By not briefing the Confrontation Clause issue raised in

the district court, Bennett has abandoned the issue on appeal. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Bennett does not raise an issue cognizable for habeas review. 

His appeal is DISMISSED.
**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**

|  | • | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,                2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Samuel                F. Occhipinti                                                                                                             |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Samuel                F. Occhipinti Chief                Financial Officer (principal                accounting officer)November                14, 2006 |

----
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISION SERVICE PLAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1993 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendant’s motion for leave to

file a sur-reply, construed as an ex parte application. So

construed, the application is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 3, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 88 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 6461.

#### STATE, EX REL., HENRY W. EATON vs. JOHN FITZPATRICK, STATE TAX COLLECTOR.

Syllabus.

1. Certificates of redemption issued by the Register of the laud office more than one year after the sale to the State are void unless all taxes due up to the time of the redemption have been paid. .

2. Such certificates are not validated by Act 269 of 1914.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 111,352. Honorable T. ’O. W. Ellis, Judge.

James B. Rosser, for plaintiff and appellee.

Harry B. Sneed, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Relator seeks to cancel certain taxes by prescription, .and the defense is that he does not own the property and is without interest in the taxes claimed.

*73Opinion and decree, April 10, 1916.

Relator acquired from Jas. B. Rosser, November 17th, 1913, but the property had been sold to the State .(July 25th, 1898) for the unpaid taxes of 1897.

On November 11th, 1913, Rosser obtained a certificate of redemption from the Register of the' land office, upon paying “the full amount of the taxes, interest, costs and penalties due for the year 1897.”

If at the time of the redemption there were no other taxes due upon the property that would seem to end the matter; proof of that fact would dispose of those taxes.

If, on the other hand, there were other taxes then due, as the tax certificate seems to show, the certificate of redemption (issued more than a year after.the sale for taxes) was issued contrary to law and is void (Act 41 of 1912, p. 49).

Nor was the invalidity of the redemption cured by Act 269 of 1914, p. 538. That act was intended to validate certificates of redemption issued after the year for redemption had passed, the validity of which if issued before the Act of 1912 was doubtful on that account. It did not purport to validate certificates void for other reasons.

Under the circumstances, we think this case should be remanded to enable relator to show, if he can, that the amount for which the property was redeemed was all that was then due upon it.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be remanded to the Court a qua to be proceeded with in accordance with the views herein expressed; .relator to pay the costs of appeal.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 23.2               CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.   As oil and gas consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name and our report dated February 5, 2007, in this Form 10-K, incorporated by reference into Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-04385, 333-40869, 333-44421, 333-55921, 333-68257, 333-54896, 333-55866, 333-91257, 333-91316-02, 333-102963, 333-102962-02, 333-122555-01, 333-123408-01 and 333-129033-01 on Form S-3, and 333-08059, 333-08087, 333-60839, 333-42178, 333-53908, 333-74864, 33-46999, 333-122345, 333-104264 and 333-132462 on Form S-8.  NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.    By:/s/ Danny D. SimmonsDanny D. Simmons
Executive Vice President   Houston, Texas February 27, 2007
Before the Third Division,

November 9, 1960

No. 64851.

#### Michigan Liquor Control Commission et al. *v.*United States,

protests 821291-G, etc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit
32.2








KNIGHT
INC.


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 on Form 10-K of Knight Inc. (the “Company”)
for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date 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:





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





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





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Knight Inc. and will be retained by Knight Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Dated:  March
      31, 2008
            
            /s/
      Kimberly A. DangKimberly
      A. Dang
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
Before the First Division,

August 4, 1944

No. 49660.

#### Petition 6417-R of S. H. Kress & Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J..

The petition was dismissed.
**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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
      Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully comply 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.





By:
       /s/Gabriel Kabazo


Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer





Dated: November 13, 2007
Exhibit - S McMahon Booking Contract


		
			FIRST AMENDMENT TO BOOKING CONTRACT
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			This First Amendment to Booking Contract (“First Amendment”), effective as of October 7, 2016, is by and between WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Promoter”), with offices at 1241 East Main Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06902, and STEPHANIE MCMAHON-LEVESQUE (“Wrestler”), with respect to a certain Booking Contract by and between Promoter and Wrestler effective as of October 7, 2013 (the “Agreement”).
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			In consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
		

		
			﻿
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			The parties agree that the “Term” of the Agreement shall be extended to run an additional three years.  Thereafter, the Term shall extend on a year-to-year basis unless either party terminates it by written notice to the other party at least ninety (90) days prior to the then effective end of the Term.




		
			﻿
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			

			
	
			
			The parties further agree to amend the Agreement by deleting paragraph 7.1(a) in its entirety and replacing it with the following provision:




		
			﻿
		

		
			“Unless terminated pursuant to the terms herein, PROMOTER shall pay WRESTLER each Contract Year the total sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) (referred to hereinafter as “Minimum Annual Compensation”).  PROMOTER agrees, commencing with the Effective Date, to pay WRESTLER the Minimum Annual Compensation in fifty-two (52) weekly installments consistent with PROMOTER’s regular payment procedures.”
		

		
			﻿
		

			
	
			
				 3.
			

			
	
			
			All terms not defined in this First Amendment shall have the same meaning given them in the Agreement.  Except as expressly or by necessary implication modified by this First Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed without limitation or exception and shall remain in full force and effect.




		
			﻿
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment as of the date first above written.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
		

		
			INC. (“Promoter”)
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
						 

					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Mark Carrano  

					
					
						 

					
					
						/s/ Stephanie McMahon-Levesque

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						Mark Carrano

					
					
						 

					
					
						Stephanie McMahon-Levesque

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						VP, Talent Relations

					
					
						 

					
					
						(“Wrestler”)

				



		
			﻿
No. 49173.

#### Protest 104683-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 39948 the horns in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
Exhibit 32.1





KINDER MORGAN, INC.

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 Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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:



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



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



|Dated:  June
  1, 2005 |  | /s/ Richard D. Kinder                                 
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Richard D. Kinder
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer





---

---
Exhibit 4.(a).29




Unofficial
Translation





[State
Emblem]





The State of
Israel


Ministry of
Communications





General License for Partner
Communications Ltd. for the Provision of


Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT)
Services using the Cellular Method





Amendment No.
52





By virtue
of the powers of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the
Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have
been delegated to us, by all our other powers under any law and after having
given Partner Communications
Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Partner”) the opportunity to
present their arguments regarding this matter, we hereby amend the General
License for the provision of mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the
cellular method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998,  as
follows:





Amendment
of Article 1





1.
            In
      Article 1.1 in the definition of "control", in sub-section (c) after the
      words "with the exception of" shall come "decisions in the matter of
      issuance of means of control in a corporation
  or";





Amendment
of Article 21




2.
            Article
      21.4 shall be deleted.





(28
October 2009)




(sgd)
              
              Eden Bar Tal, Adv.
              Director-General
            (sgd)
              
              Zeev Raz
              Temporary Senior Deputy Director-General
              Engineering and Licensing