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

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUL-26-1998
<CASH>                                        672,278
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                              29,448,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,160,000
<INVENTORY>                                21,001,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           96,929,846
<PP&E>                                    196,723,078
<DEPRECIATION>                             74,451,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            289,328,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      38,797,123
<BONDS>                                   126,220,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       96,593
<OTHER-SE>                                108,647,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              289,328,176
<SALES>                                    25,763,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          142,421,385
<CGS>                                      22,117,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             126,482,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,932,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             7,886,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                2,995,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4,891,861
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                4,891,861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.52
        


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 8987)

Entry No. 11282, etc.

#### H. H. Elder *&*Co. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided September 11, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to various classes of merchandise exported from France and entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif.

*644The cases have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of the decision in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 596, Reap. Dec. 8590, the record in which case was incorporated herein by consent. In that case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

An agreed set of facts, included in the stipulation of submission, establishes that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is statutory foreign value and that such value for each of the items in question is the appraised value, “less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 13,340.

#### STEARNS v. RIPLEY.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMTENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         132,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,515,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   113,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,376,000<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,623,000
<PP&E>                                      19,479,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,365,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,445,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,101,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,851,000<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,284,000<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,445,000
<SALES>                                     17,129,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,502,000
<CGS>                                       14,074,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,074,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             228,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 94,000<F4>
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            191,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   191,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<FN>
<F1>NET OF LIFO RESERVE OF $ 914,000
<F2>RETAINED EARNINGS
<F3>1,515,722 TOTAL COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
<F4>BEFORE MINORITY INTEREST OF $ 132,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1





                                                                   Exhibit 10.45



                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this "AMENDMENT") dated as of
January 12, 2000 and effective as of the Effective Time (as defined below),
between Precision Response Corporation, a Florida corporation ("EMPLOYER"), and
Richard N. Ferry, Jr. ("EMPLOYEE"). "EFFECTIVE TIME" has the meaning set forth
in the Merger Agreement described below.

     Employer currently employs Employee pursuant to that certain Employment
Agreement, dated as of April 1, 1999, between Employer and Employee (the
"AGREEMENT");

     Employer has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "MERGER
AGREEMENT") with USA Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("USAi"), and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of USAi ("MERGER SUB"), pursuant to which Employer has
agreed to merge with and into Merger Sub, subject to certain terms and
conditions. It is a material condition to such merger (the "MERGER") that
Employee enter into this Amendment, and Employee has agreed to enter into this
Amendment in consideration of, among other things, the benefits to be received
by the Employee in connection with the Merger.

     The parties agree that the Agreement shall be amended effective on and
after the Effective Time as follows:

     1.   The definition of "Constructive Termination" in the fifth sentence of
Section 9(B) of the Agreement is amended by deleting the references to
"Chairman of the Board" and to "Mark J. Gordon" in clause (z) thereof.

     2.   Except as otherwise specifically modified by this Amendment, all
terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain effective and
shall continue to operate in full force throughout the entire term of the
Agreement, as amended hereby.

     3.   This Amendment shall be governed by and construed pursuant to the
laws of the State of Florida.

     4.   This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall
be an original, but both of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.

     5.   If the Merger Agreement is terminated before the Effective Time, this
Amendment shall be null and void and of no force or effect.

<PAGE>   2





     The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of
the day and year first above written.




                                             PRECISION RESPONSE CORPORATION


                                             By: /s/ David Epstein
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  David Epstein
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                             /s/ Richard N. Ferry
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Richard N. Ferry, Jr.


                                       2
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leo Nicholas GASGA-AMAYA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50489.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 27, 2005.

Michelle P. Jennings, U.S. Attorney Office, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Antonio F. Yoon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Leo Nicolas Gasga-Amaya appeals from a 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Gasga-Amaya contends that his 41-month sentence exceeded the statutory maximum allowed under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because he did not admit, and the government did not prove to a jury, his prior aggravated felony conviction, which the court used to increase his term pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention is foreclosed by this court’s case law. *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that a district judge’s enhancement of a sentence, based on the fact of a prior conviction under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, does not raise any Sixth Amendment problems).

Because Gasga-Amaya was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See Moreno Hermandez at*916 (extending *Ameline’s*limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. On remand the district court should also correct the judgment to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). *See United States v.*
        *908
        *Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000).
From: Wyels, Philip@Waterboards
To: VonVacano, Marcela
Cc: Rasmussen, Rik@Waterboards Subject: FW: Applicability Of State Water Resources Control Board"s Compliance Schedule Policy to U.S. EPA"s Proposed Selenium Water Quality Standard
Date: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:25:22 PM
Attachments: removed.txt USEPA Selenium Letter - Compliance Schedules (5-20-2016) MAML).pdf

Marcela, here is the final signed letter. A few changes from the draft that I sent you a couple of weeks ago, but the same conclusion.
Phil

save_water

Philip G. Wyels Assistant Chief Counsel, State Board Water Quality Unit
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 341-5178 (phone) (916) 341-5199 (fax) Philip.Wyels@waterboards.ca.gov

From: Griffin, Joanne@Waterboards Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:23 PM To: Howard, Tom@Waterboards; Bishop, Jonathan@Waterboards; Larsen, Karen@Waterboards; Wyels, Philip@Waterboards Cc: Lauffer, Michael@Waterboards Subject: Applicability Of State Water Resources Control Board's Compliance Schedule Policy to U.S. EPA's Proposed Selenium Water Quality Standard


## Attached is a letter from Michael Lauffer regarding the above entitled matter. If you have any problems receiving this attachment, please contact me.

Thank you.

Joanne Griffin Legal Support Supervisor I State Water Resources Control Board Main Line: 916 341.5161 Office: 916 324.6831 Help Save Waterhttp://www.saveourh2o.org/
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 9, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11035

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00264-CR-T-27-EAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORLANDO CEBALLOS,

a.k.a. Pepe,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 9, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Bruce G. Howie, appointed counsel for Orlando Ceballos in this appeal, has
moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED, and Ceballos’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

2
# C_2015320EN.01001601.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone

(Case C-332/15)

(2015/C 320/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Defendant

Defendant

Giuseppe Astone

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (1) | Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006 (1), as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above and in force in Italy (Article 19 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of exercising the right to deduct where there has been a failure to file VAT returns, in particular, the return for the second year after the year in which the right to deduct arose? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006 (1), as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above and in force in Italy (Article 19 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of exercising the right to deduct where there has been a failure to file VAT returns, in particular, the return for the second year after the year in which the right to deduct arose?

1

| (2) | Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006, as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above in force in Italy (Articles 25 and 39 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of taking account, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT, of purchase invoices which the taxable person has completely failed to register? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006, as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above in force in Italy (Articles 25 and 39 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of taking account, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT, of purchase invoices which the taxable person has completely failed to register?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2017221EN.01001901.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Agria Polska and Others v Commission

(Case T-480/15) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Abuse of dominant position - Distribution of plant protection products market - Decision to reject a complaint - Alleged anticompetitive behaviour of producers and distributors - Concerted or coordinated action of lodging complaints, by producers and distributors, before administrative and criminal authorities - Reporting alleged infringements of the applicable rules by parallel importers - Administrative inspections subsequently carried out by the administrative authorities - Imposition of administrative and criminal penalties by national authorities on parallel importers - Assimilation of complaints by producers and distributors to vexatious actions or abuses of administrative procedures - Lack of European Union interest - Right to effective judicial protection))

(2017/C 221/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Agria Polska sp. z o.o., (Sosnowiec, Poland), Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., (Sosnowiec), Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH (Allerheiligen bei Wildon, Austria) and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (Allerheiligen bei Wildon) (represented initially by S. Dudzik and J. Budzik, and subsequently by P. Graczyk and W. Rocławski, lawyers,)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, A. Dawes and J. Norris Usher, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4284 final of 19 June 2015 (Case AT.39864 — BASF (formerly AGRIA and Others v BASF and Others)), rejecting the applicants’ complaint concerning infringements of Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed, essentially, by 13 producers and distributors of plant protection products, with the assistance or through four professional organisations and a law firm.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
Case No. 8,066.

#### Case of LANGE.

[13 Blatchf. 546.]

[See Appendix, Federal Cases.] ■
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LARRY BOYD, Jr., Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 581, 40 CMR 293

No. 22,120

September 19, 1969

*Lieutenant Kenneth F. Ripple,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouehe,*USMC, *Captain Lester G. Want, III,*USMCR, and *Captain William S. Foss,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

Following his plea of guilty, the accused was found guilty of desertion, wrongfully possessing one marihuana cigarette and forty marihuana seeds, at the Naval Air' Station Brig, Corpus Christi, Texas, and, under an additional charge, of wrongfully using marihuana, heroin, and cocaine, in the Haight-Ashbury District, San Francisco, California, in violation of Articles 85 and 134, 10 USC §§ 885 and 934, respectively. These convictions still stand. We have before us two issues: (1) whether the accused’s guilty pleas are provident, and (2) whether the court-martial had jurisdiction over the offenses alleged in the specifications under the Additional Charge.

The law officer’s inquiry into the providence of' the accused’s pleas of guilty did not cover the elements of the offenses charged. The procedure followed in this case would not meet *582the standard that applies to cases tried thirty days after the decision in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR '247. Because of the plea, the trial record is devoid of factual proof. The accompanying Article 32 investigation, however, contains Boyd’s confession to .each of the marihuana and narcotic offenses charged and to a voluntarily terminated unauthorized absence, as well. Clearly then, his pleas of guilty to the former offenses are provident. His confessed unauthorized absence does not, without some evidence or implication of intent to remain away permanently, support the charge of desertion. Cf. United States v Care, supra. His conviction of it must be set aside.

In United States v Beeker, 18 USCMA 563, 40 CMR 275, this Court determined that the possession or use of marihuana and narcotics by military persons on or off a military base had special military significance and that the military has jurisdiction to try an accused for such offenses. They are acts outside the limitation on military jurisdiction set out by the Supreme Court of the United States in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969). Thus, in this case, the Navy had jurisdiction to try the accused for the use of marihuana, heroin, and cocaine in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco, California, as alleged in the three specifications under the Additional Charge.

The findings of guilty to the desertion under Charge I and its specification are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered on the original charge or the Court of Military Review may affirm the lesser included offense of unauthorized absence and reassess the sentence.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                  AMENDMENT TO THE WEBSITE MARKETING AGREEMENT

                               DATED APRIL 19,1999

BETWEEN:     CYBEROAD GAMING CORPORATION, a St. Kitts corporation, ("CGC"); and

BETWEEN:     CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED. and Isle of Man corporation;

WHEREAS this Amendment acknowledges that:

        a)     the parties hereto agree that the Website Marketing Agreement
               between the parties hereto, shall bear an effective date of May
               1, 1999.

EXECUTION IN COUNTERPART

This instrument may be signed in counterpart, in as many counterparts as may be
necessary, and all such counterparts shall be deemed to be an original and
shall constitute one and the same agreement and shall bear the date first
written above.

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 BY:


CYBEROAD GAMING CORPORATION                 CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED



By: /s/ LAWRENCE COFIELD                    By: /s/ JOHN COFFEY
   ----------------------                      -----------------
   Lawrence Cofield,                           John Coffey,
   Director                                    Director