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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the contained quarterly 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                              1,489,843
<SECURITIES>                                           39,993
<RECEIVABLES>                                         415,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    3,029,585
<PP&E>                                             51,397,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                     22,611,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     41,657,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,918,949
<BONDS>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                            2,178,297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         28,889,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       41,657,036
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   10,661,297
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    8,417,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    683,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     1,837,822
<INCOME-TAX>                                          674,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 1,163,822
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1,163,822
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.00



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

**THIS FIRSTAMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between **Cano Petroleum Inc.**, a Delaware corporationwith its principal executive offices in Fort Worth, Texas (the “Company”), and**Phillip Feiner**, an individual currentlyresiding in Collin County, Texas (“Employee” collectively, the “Parties”),effective as of the 8th day of September, 2008 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Employee entered into thatcertain Employment Agreement dated as of May 31, 2008, (the “Agreement”);and

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Employee now desire toamend, alter, modify and change the terms and provisions of the Agreement, asfollows.

 

**NOW THEREFORE**, for and in consideration of the mutualbenefits to be obtained hereunder and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, theCompany and Employee do hereby agree to amend, alter, modify and change theAgreement, effective prospectively, as of the Amendment Effective Date asfollows:

 

**1.****                                     ****Section 4. (a)  Compensation.shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in place and inlieu thereof:**

 

(a)                                  Salary:  The Company shall pay Employeefor his services, a base salary, on an annualized basis, of $170,000.00 (OneHundred Seventy Thousand Dollars) per annum for the period from the EffectiveDate, which salary shall be payable by the Company in substantially equalinstallments on the Company’s normal payroll dates.  All applicable taxeson the base salary will be withheld in accordance with applicable federal,state and local taxation guidelines.

 

Except as specifically amended, altered, modifiedand changed hereby and heretofore, the Agreement remains in full force andeffect as originally written.

 

 

**[*Signature Page Follows*]**

 

1

----

 

**Signatures**

 

To evidence the bindingeffect of the covenants and agreements described above, the Parties hereto haveexecuted this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

 

 
|   | THE COMPANY:             |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |
|   | **CANO PETROLEUM, INC.** |
|   | ** **               |
|   |                     |
|   | By:                      | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson |
|   |                     | S. Jeffrey Johnson |
|   |                     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | EMPLOYEE:                |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Phillip Feiner       |
|   |  Phillip Feiner     |

 

2

----
No. 62603.

#### We Moderns, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/4755 (New York).

*452Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of headboards similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(s)



                        2000 ANNUAL INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN

The 2000 Annual Incentive Bonus Plan (the "Plan") for corporate officers, which
is directly linked to the financial performance of the Corporation, is  designed
to provide additional cash and stock compensation when specific financial
performances are achieved or exceeded. The Plan provides awards to individuals
when the Corporation meets its operating plan in terms of primary earnings per
share, cash flow, and critical objectives as follows: 60% of the bonus is
dependent on earnings per share, 20% on cash flow, and 20% on individual
objectives. Bonuses range from 30% of base pay when the plan is met to a cap of
100% of base pay when the plan is exceeded. 80% of the bonus is delivered in the
form of cash compensation and 20% in the form of restricted stock units issued
pursuant to the 1998 Management Stock Incentive Plan.
No. 50474.

#### Protests 896799-G, etc., of Somerset Importers, Ltd. (Los Angeles).

*264Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated at the hearing that the vessels upon which the whisky was laden were vessels of American registry engaged in trade between the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of the United States, and that the collector rejected conditional free withdrawal of the merchandise because it was not listed on the ship’s store list or the ship’s manifest. Plaintiff contended that the demand for payment on the part of the collector having been made more than 60 days after the entries were liquidated or withdrawn from warehouse without payment of duty under section 309, was without authority of law; that when the collector permitted such withdrawals free of duty, he rendered a decision under said section 309 that no duty was due; and that such decision became final and conclusive and his demands for payment of liquidated damages were contrary to the provisions of section 514. Inasmuch as the record was silent as to just what the demand of the collector consisted of, the court found that there was insufficient evidence before it to decide that question. Plaintiff’s alternative claim is that the requirement that the merchandise be entered on the ship’s manifest or store list, was beyond the authority of the Secretary of the Treasüry in that it adds to the statute a condition not therein found. The same contention was made and overruled in *United States*v. *Mexican Petroleum Corp.*(28 C. C. P. A. 90, C. A. D. 130), upon a holding that the regulations were valid. Following the decision cited the protests were overruled.
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Kimberly A. Springsteen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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





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







/s/Kimberly A.
      SpringsteenKimberly
      A. SpringsteenChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      14, 2008
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 22-0190V

UNPUBLISHED

MATTHEW J. MILLER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 15, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Milton Clay Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Petitioner.

Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 22, 2022, Matthew J. Miller filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered injuries including Guillain-Barre 

Syndrome (“GBS”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 7, 2020. 

Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges he received the vaccine in the United States, he 

has experienced sequela of his injury for longer than six months, and neither Petitioner 

nor any other party has filed any other claim or lawsuit, or entered into any settlement, 

related to the injuries he sustained. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 13, 14; Ex. 1. The case was assigned 

to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

On September 15, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(“QAI”), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if onset of GBS occurs 

between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent 

alternative cause.” Id. at 5. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
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

MAILLARD L. KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2618 LKK KJM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 May 5, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02618-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 07/12/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 5, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

DATED: July 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/king2618.800

Case 2:04-cv-02618-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 2
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LEASE 

This Second Amendment to Industrial Building Lease (“Second Amendment”) is made as of the 1st day of July, 2014, by and between
Philip J. Latoria, Jr. (“Lessor”) and Rubicon Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Lessee”). 
 RECITALS

 A. Lessor and Lessee are parties to an Industrial Building Lease, dated July 18, 2007, as amended by a First Amendment to
Building Lease, dated September 12, 2007 (collectively, the “Lease”), for the property located at 900 Green Street, Bensenville, Illinois 60106, Illinois (the “Premises”). 

B. Lessor and Lessee desire to amend the Lease as provided in this Second Amendment to extend the Term and to modify the Base Rent payable by
Lessee. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Lessor
and Lessee agree as follows: 
 1. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Second Amendment, all capitalized terms used herein
shall have the same meanings as are ascribed to them in the Lease. 
 2. Term. The Term of the Lease shall extend through
June 30, 2019. All terms and conditions in the Lease relating to Lessee’s options to extend the Term are superseded by this Second Amendment. 

3. Base Rent. The table of Base Rent set forth in the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety. The Base Rent payable by Lessee to
Lessor or Lessor’s agent from the date of this Second Amendment for the balance of the Term shall be $24,145.33 per month (being $9.50 per square foot or $289,750 for each twelve month period). 

4. No Defaults or Breaches. Lessor and Lessee each hereby acknowledges to the other that, as of the date hereof, the Lease is in full
force and effect and that neither Lessor nor Lessee is in default or breach of any term or covenant of the Lease. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
have executed this Second Amendment as of the day and year stated in the introduction hereto. 
  

					
	 Lessee:
		Lessor:
		
	Rubicon Technology, Inc.		
			
	By:		 /s/ Raja M. Parvez
		 /s/ Philip J. Latoria

			Raja M. Parvez, President		Philip J. Latoria
<PAGE>
  


<TABLE>
                                                                                   EXHIBIT 11
<CAPTION>
                                      KOLLMORGEN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                        CALCULATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                             Year Ended December 31               

                                        1995        1994         1993        1992         1991  
<S>                               <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>         
Net income (loss)                 $     7,157 $     4,051  $     4,752 $    (8,725) $   (35,938)
Less preferred stock dividends, 
  accretion of discount, and 
  premium paid on preferred
  stock redemption                     (4,648)     (2,324)      (2,324)     (2,330)      (2,325)
                                   ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------  -----------
Earnings applicable to common stock     2,509       1,727        2,428     (11,055)     (38,263)
                                   ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------  -----------


Number of shares:
    Weighted average number of
       shares outstanding           9,667,434   9,641,698    9,632,232   9,627,228    9,628,122 
    Shares issuable on assumed
       exercise of dilutive options       --          --           --          --           --  
                                   -----------------------  ----------- -----------  -----------

Adjusted shares                     9,667,434   9,641,698    9,632,232   9,627,228    9,628,122 
                                   =========== ===========  =========== ===========  ===========

Earnings (loss) per share             $  .26     $  .18       $  .25      $(1.14)      $(3.97)  
                                   =========== ===========  =========== ===========  ===========

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

December 5, 1957

No. 61383.

protest 300054-K (New York).

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., and Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest relates to certain motors which the collector classified as parts of toys and assessed with duty at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 53865, supplemented by T. D. 53877. Plaintiffs claim that the articles are properly classifiable under the provision in paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 52739, for articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, carrying a dutiable rate of 12)4 per centum ad valorem.

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties stipulated that the articles in question are electric motors, which operate only on direct current, and that they are in chief value of metal.

Two witnesses testified; both appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Their combined testimony supports the following summation: The voltage of the electric motor in question is wound for 3 to 4)4 volts. This motor is a “very sensitive high-precision unit,” equipped with replaceable carbon brushes and having ball-bearing supported shafts, ground of high-speed steel. It is extensively used by industrial firms, Government agencies, inventors, and designing companies in experimental work for production development. Among the several firms, companies, and Government agencies using the motor for such purpose are United States Naval Research Laboratories of Washington, D. C., Atomic Laboratories of Berkeley, Calif., Rocket Guidance Society of Cocoa Beach, Fla., and the Hoffman Elec-*514fcronic Corp. of Evanston, Ill. This motor is also used in electric shavers, in miniature fans made to cool Hi-Ei equipment, and by hobbyists in radio control equipment for aircraft or large boats. There is nothing herein to indicate that the motor under consideration has any use as part of a toy. The witnesses’ testimony also includes references to another electric motor of lower voltage (1J4 to 3 volts) that is identical in appearance, weight, and size, operates in the same manner, and is used for the same purposes as the electric motor in question.

The record before us is conclusive in establishing that the electric motors under consideration are not parts of toys, as assessed by the collector, but that they are properly classifiable under paragraph 353, as modified, *supra,*as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, and dutiable at the rate of 12)4 per centum ad valorem, as claimed by plaintiffs, and we so hold.

The protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 For purposes of consistency, the court maintains the

same captioning originally used in the this matter. (See May 12,

2005 Order Re: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion

For Declaratory Relief). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BLUE MAGIC PRODUCTS, INC.,

(BOYD FLOTATION, INC., ALLEGED

SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN), 

NO. CIV. S-00-1155 WBS JFM

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-04-2398 WBS JFM

 

v. O R D E R

BLUE MAGIC, INC., et al., (THE

RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

SUCCESSOR),

Defendant.

______________________________

BOYD FLOTATION, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.1

----oo0oo----

Case 2:04-cv-02398-WBS -JFM Document 43 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 3
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

The Rectorseal Corporation (“Rectorseal”) has filed a

bill of costs and motion for award of attorneys’ fees set for

hearing on August 8, 2005. Boyd Flotation, Inc. (“Boyd

Flotation”) has filed an ex parte application to continue the

hearing on Rectorseal’s motion to August 22, 2005. (See Pls.’ Ex

Parte Application For Continuance of Hearing (“Pl.s’ Ex Parte

Application”) at 1). Boyd Flotation’s counsel, Kenneth C.

Mennemeier, states in a signed declaration that he will be on

vacation with his family the week of the hearing and that he

believes it is important for him to cover the hearing on behalf

of his client. (Mennemeier Decl. in Supp. of Pl.’s Ex Parte

Application ¶¶ 3, 7). These constitute sufficient reasons for

granting Boyd Flotation’s application. 

However, the court notes that Rectorseal objects to

Boyd Flotation’s application for a continuance on the grounds

that the continuance would cause Rectorseal to incur additional

travel expenses that could otherwise be avoided if the hearing

date were to remain undisturbed. (See Baker Decl. in Supp. Of

Def.’s Response & Objection to Pl.’s Ex Parte Application ¶ 8). 

In light of Rectorseal’s objection, the court will allow

Rectorseal’s counsel to appear at the newly scheduled hearing

telephonically if he so chooses. This option should allow

Rectorseal to avoid incurring any additional travel expenses as a

result of the continuance. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the hearing on defendant’s

bills of costs and motion for award of attorneys’ fees is 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02398-WBS -JFM Document 43 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

continued from August 8, 2005 to August 22, 2005. Defendant’s

attorney may appear at the August 22, 2005 hearing by telephone

if he so chooses. 

DATED: July 25, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02398-WBS -JFM Document 43 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 3