alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15




To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders
   of Northeast Utilities

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Northeast Utilities and subsidiaries for the periods ended
June 30, 2003 and 2002, as indicated in our report dated August 8, 2003;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-34622, 333-55142
and 33-40156 on Forms S-3 and Nos. 33-44814, 33-63023, 333-52413, 333-52415
and 333-106008 on Forms S-8 of Northeast Utilities.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP
     Deloitte & Touche LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
August 8, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         133,181
<SECURITIES>                                 1,548,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,001,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                    96,634
<INVENTORY>                                     54,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,023,135
<PP&E>                                      16,546,287
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,130,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,212,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,272,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,265,374
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,865,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,212,803
<SALES>                                      3,469,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,469,269
<CGS>                                          886,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,200,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                240,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            240,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   240,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
257 La. 605

#### Queen Esther JOHNSON et al. v. LUMBERMAN’S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al.

No. 51072.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Queen Esther Johnson and Verna Johnson Baker applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 241 So. 2d 23.

Writs denied. Result correct on record before us.
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

EMBARGOED UNTIL 9 A.M. (EST) February 15, 2006 

CONTACT Brookly McLaughlin (202) 622-1996 

TREASURY INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL DATA FOR DECEMBER 

Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for December are released today and posted on the U.S. 

Treasury web site (www.treas.gov/tic). The next release date, which will report on data for January, 

is scheduled for March 15, 2006. 

Net foreign purchases of long-term securities were $56.6 billion. 

• Net foreign purchases of long-term domestic securities were $74.2 billion, $10.4 billion of 

which were net purchases by foreign official institutions and $63.8 billion of which were net 

purchases by private foreign investors. 

• U.S. residents purchased a net $17.6 billion in foreign issued securities. 

Foreigners’ Transactions in Long-Term Securities with U.S. Residents 

(Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted)

2003 2004 2005 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 

1 Gross Purchases of Domestic Securities 13526.0 15178.9 17049.2 1654.1 1445.7 1426.6 1207.7

2 Gross Sales of Domestic Securities 12806.1 14262.4 16000.7 1538.6 1336.9 1320.9 1133.5

3 Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1 719.9 916.5 1048.5 115.5 108.8 105.7 74.2

4 Private, net /2 585.0 680.9 933.7 111.2 95.9 99.8 63.8

5 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 159.7 150.9 289.6 22.9 25.0 50.8 12.7

6 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 129.9 205.7 192.6 18.6 28.7 8.7 7.4

7 Corporate Bonds, net 260.3 298.0 372.9 47.7 34.4 35.6 34.9

8 Equities, net 35.0 26.2 78.7 22.0 7.8 4.7 8.8

9 Official, net 134.9 235.6 114.7 4.3 13.0 5.9 10.4

10 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 103.8 201.1 61.2 -1.1 4.9 3.7 5.6

11 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 25.9 20.8 34.2 2.2 6.2 0.4 2.4

12 Corporate Bonds, net 5.4 11.5 18.9 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.4

13 Equities, net -0.3 2.2 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 -0.1

14 Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities 2761.8 3123.1 3688.9 319.4 374.3 338.3 324.9

15 Gross Sales of Foreign Securities 2818.4 3276.0 3826.8 335.6 377.5 352.4 342.5

16 Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /3 -56.5 -152.8 -137.8 -16.2 -3.2 -14.1 -17.6

17 Foreign Bonds Purchased, net 32.0 -67.9 -16.2 -9.7 2.8 2.2 -3.7

18 Foreign Equities Purchased, net -88.6 -85.0 -121.6 -6.5 -6.0 -16.4 -13.8

19 Net Long-Term Flows (line 3 plus line 16) 663.3 763.6 910.7 99.3 105.6 91.6 56.6

/1 Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)

/2 Includes International and Regional Organizations

/3 Net U.S. acquisitions of foreign securities (-)
Exhibit 10.6

CTS


June 2, 2005


Douglas W. Stotlar
President and Chief Executive Officer
CNF Inc.
3240 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Re:  Severance Agreement dated as of March 1, 2005

Dear Doug:

Reference is made to the Severance Agreement ("Severance Agreement") dated as
of March 1, 2005 between you and Con-Way Transportation Services, Inc.
("CTS").

The purpose of this letter is to formally terminate the Severance Agreement,
since you are no longer employed by CTS.  Please acknowledge the termination
of the Severance Agreement by signing on the line set forth below.

Sincerely,

 /s/ Scott Engers

Scott Engers


Acknowledged and agreed this 2nd day of June, 2005.

/s/ Douglas W. Stotlar
_____________________________________
Douglas W. Stotlar
Document

Exhibit 10.2


August 11, 2021




Michael Weening                    (VIA EMAIL AND DOCUSIGN)
President and COO
Calix, Inc.                
(michael.weening@calix.com)




Re:    Second Amendment to Letter Agreement for Relocation Allowance (“Second Amendment”)


Dear Michael:


This Second Amendment amends the Letter Agreement dated November 27, 2019, between Calix, Inc. (the “Company”) and you, as previously amended (the “Letter Agreement”).  Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning ascribed in the Letter Agreement.


The Letter Agreement is hereby amended to provide:


1.The Relocation Date shall be extended to two (2) years from the date of this letter, or August 11, 2023.


2.The Relocation Condition shall be considered met by your purchase of and relocation to a residence in the general vicinity of the Company’s offices in San Jose, California.


Except as expressly amended herein, the Letter Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


Please countersign below to acknowledge and accept this Second Amendment. 


    Very truly yours,


/s/ Carl Russo         
    Calix, Inc.
    By: Carl Russo
    Title: Chairman and CEO




ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:




/s/ Michael Weening    
Michael Weening
2777 Orchard Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
www.calix.com
Exhibit 32  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 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Leon J. Olivier, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.    /s/Leon J. OlivierLeon J. OlivierChief Executive Officer   /s/David R. McHaleDavid R. McHaleSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:  August 6, 2008    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, 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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.02




SHADES HOLDINGS, INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 of Shades Holdings, Inc.  (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jesus Diaz, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and





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





/s/ Jesus DiazJesus DiazPrincipal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting OfficerApril 15, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                             443
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      734
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (241)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          36,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,373)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         23,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,093
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,244
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     57
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 57
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    253
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
# Web Oct
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6267

ELVIS WAYNE JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. THE VIRGINIA ACA; QUINN MICHAEL, The Virginia Attorney; THE AMERICAN CORRECTION ASSOCIATION; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv - 00158

- RAJ

- RJK )

Submitted : April 22 , 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Elvis Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Elvis Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his civil action for failure to comply with the district court’s prior order to submit an amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and statutory filing fee or in forma pauperis application within the allotted time. Before this appeal was filed, Jones submitted to the
district court an amended § 1983 complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Jones now has complie d with the district court’s prior order and the district court will obtain jurisdiction to review the filings upon disposition of this appeal,
we conclude there is no relief Jones could obtain by way of this appeal, and we dismiss the appeal as moot. See CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne , 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Litigation may become moot during the pendency of an appeal when an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant effective relief to the prevailing party.”). We fu rther deny Jones’ motions for federal transit extension, summary judgment, default judgment, and injunctive relief pending appeal . We dispense 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
1

Michael J. Astrue has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security and is substituted as the appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1656

___________

*

Fay Cragle Conner *

*

Plaintiff – Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Michael J. Astrue,1

 Commissioner, * District of Arkansas.

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant – Appellee. *

*

*

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2007 

Filed: April 16, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
2

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

-2-

Fay Cragle Conner appeals the district court's2

 affirmance of the

Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. The administrative law judge found that although

Conner has hypertension, elevated liver enzymes and hypercholesterolmia, she has no

impairment, or combination of impairments, that results in more than a minimal effect

on her ability to perform basic work-related activities. The ALJ noted that no medical

evidence supported her complaints of pain in her back, neck and shoulders. The ALJ

concluded that she does not have a severe impairment, and is not disabled. The

Appeals Council denied review. Having carefully reviewed the record, this court

finds that the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence on

the record as a whole. See Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 2004)

(standard of review); Kelley v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 958, 960 (8th Cir. 2004) (same).

Accordingly, as an opinion would have no precedential value, the judgment is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 13 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL P. PAALAN,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-3220
v. (D. Kansas) COLONEL MICHEAL A. LANSING,

Respondent - Appellee. (D.C. No. CV-98-3436-RDR)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Michael P. Paalan, a prisoner at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, appeals the district court’s dismissal, without1 Mr. Paalan also seeks a certificate of appealability. However, that

requirement does not apply to § 2441 petitions. Br adshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). -2- prejudice, of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2441. 1 The dismissal was based on the fact that Mr. Paal an’s appeal of his trial by general court-martial and conviction, and, inter alia , for premeditated murder, is currently pending before the Navy-Marine Corps C ourt of Criminal Appeals. Thus, Mr. Paalan has not yet exhausted his available remedies. See Khan v. Hart , 943 F.2d 1261, 1263 (10th Cir. 1991); Capps v. Sullivan , 13 F.3d 350, 354 n.2 (10th Cir. 1993). Mr. Paalan does not dispute the fact that his appea ls are ongoing in the military courts. Rather, he argues that federal co urts should intervene because, he asserts, the military courts have, at all relevant times, lacked jurisdiction over him, and because his case demonstrates both specialmerit and hardship. He also contends that the long delay by the military courts in resolving his appeal warrants immediate federal court intervention. The district court did not err in declining to do so. Our habeas jurisdiction to review a military convic tion is limited even when the habeas petition is filed at the appropriate time. See Burns v. Wilson , 346 U.S. 137, 142-44 (1976); Lips v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks ,-3-

997 F.2d 808, 811 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1091 (1994); Khan v. Hart , 943 F.2d 1261, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1991). This petition is premature. The military courts mu st first decide the issues, including the issue of jurisdiction, raised by Mr. Paalan. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,641<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     16,874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,291
<PP&E>                                          18,608<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,382
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           663
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,020
<SALES>                                         20,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,905<F3>
<CGS>                                           16,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (157)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (68)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (26)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (42)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (42)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        
<FN>
<F1> Net of allowance for doubtful accounts
<F2> Net of accumulated depreciation
<F3> Exclusive of depreciation, depletion and amortization
</FN>

</TABLE>