alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27026-27027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12484]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers;

    United States City Average
    Pursuant to Section 112 of the 1976 amendments to the Federal 
Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30116(c), the Secretary of Labor has 
certified to the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission and 
publishes this notice in the Federal Register that the United States 
City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
(1967=100) increased 397.1 percent from its 1974 annual average of 
147.7 to its 2017 annual average of 734.269 and that it increased 38.4 
percent from its 2001 annual average of 530.4 to its 2017 annual 
average of 734.269. Using 1974 as a base (1974=100), I certify that the 
United States City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
Consumers thus increased 397.1 percent from its 1974 annual average of 
100 to its 2017 annual average of 497.135. Using 2001 as a base 
(2001=100), I certify that the United States City Average All Items 
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 38.4 percent 
from its 2001 annual average of 100 to its 2017 annual average of 
138.437. Using 2006 as a base (2006=100), I certify that the CPI 
increased 21.6 percent from its 2006

[[Page 27027]]

annual average of 100 to its 2017 annual average of 121.588.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 30, 2018.
R. Alexander Acosta,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2018-12484 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
#### Willie Edward WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-132.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### COMPANIA DOMINICANA de AVIACION and Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Petitioners, v. Charles KNAPP, as father of Clifford Knapp, etc., Respondent.

No. 41551.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 251 So.2d 18.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### JOSEPH A. NEYREY, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC. v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.

No. 60362.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Louisiana Power & Light Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 347 So.2d 266.

Application denied.

SANDERS, C. J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

DENNIS, J.,

would grant the writ.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Gregg L. Engles, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dean Holding Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of Dean Holding Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 4. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for Dean Holding Company and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto Dean Holding Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of Dean Holding Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the period covered by this quarterly report, based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in Dean Holding Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during Dean Holding Company’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Dean HoldingCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.5. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Dean Holding Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Dean HoldingCompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in Dean Holding Company’s internal control over financial reporting.              /s/ GREGG L. ENGLES   Gregg L. Engles   *Chief Executive Officer*   August 15, 2005
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00149-CR

CARLOS OMAR CASILLAS AKA CARLOS OMAR CASILLAS PADILLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1725960

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos Omar Casillas, aka Carlos Omar Casillas Padilla, was convicted by the 8

th Judicial 

District Court of Hopkins County in this case of possession of child pornography1and assessed 

punishment of ten years’ imprisonment. This case was tried with seven companion cases, which 

are the subject of other appeals pending before this Court.2 Casillas filed a single, consolidated 

brief covering all eight appeals in which he contends (1) that his trial counsel gave him ineffective 

assistance of counsel and (2) that the trial court erred in assessing a criminal technology fee. 

The argument raised in this appeal is based exclusively on the argument brought before 

this Court in the companion appeal styled Casillas v. State, cause number 06-17-00147-CR. In 

our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that (1) Casillas has not shown that his 

trial counsel gave him ineffective assistance and (2) the trial court was authorized to assess costs 

for a criminal technology fee. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Casillas’ issues 

as they apply to this appeal.

 

1See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a) (West 2016).

2

In his companion cases, 06-17-00147-CR, 06-17-00148-CR, 06-17-00150-CR, 06-17-00151-CR, 06-17-00152-CR, 

06-17-00153-CR, and 06-17-00154-CR, Casillas appeals from his convictions for seven additional counts of 

possession of child pornography.
3

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 3, 2017

Date Decided: November 8, 2017

Do Not Publish
M e m o t o D o c k e t

S u b j ec t: C a ll B e t w e e n F r ee p o r t M c M oRa n M i a m i I n c o r p

. ( F MM I ) a n d E P A

Dat e : M a y 13

, 201 4

P a r t i c i p a n t s :

A g e n d a :

1. R e v i e w o f D o c u m e n t s s e n t t o E P A

2. Op t ion s f

or B A R T

3. P e r m itt in g S c h e du l e

4. O p e n d i s c u s s i o n

S u m m a r y:

· T h i s ca l l w a s a f

o l l ow

- u p t o t h e A pr i l 29

, 2014 m e e t i n g b e t w ee n F M M I a n d E P A

. F M M I

li s t e d t h e a d d it io n a l m a t e r i a l s t h a t i t h a s p r o v i d e d t o E P A s in c e t h a t m e e t i n g i n c l u d i n g :

o t h e dr a f

t A D E Q p e r m i t a n d T S D f or t h e p r o j e c t t h a t i n c l u d e s th e c o nv e r t e r a i s l e

s c ru b b e r

,

o C F D f

or t h e c a n op y h oo d

,

o t h e e x t e nd e d r oo f

l i n e r e p or t

,

o t h e m o s t r ec e n t e m i s s i o n s i n v e n t or y s p r e a d s h e e t s

, a n d

o t h e c o n s t r

u c t io n s c h e du l e f

or t h e h o o d in g a n d a i s l e s c ru b b e r

.

· E P A r e v i e w e d t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f th e p r o po s e d F I P

, i n c l ud in g th e m e t h od o l o g y f o r

d e t e r m i n i n g c o m

p li a n c e w i t h th e pr opo s e 99

. 7 p e r c e n t c o n t r o l e ff i c i e n c y

.

· E P A a n d F M M I d i s c u ss e d th e s c h e du l e f or r e v i e w o f t h e p r o po s e d r e vi s i o n t o F M M I ’ s

T itl e V P e r m i t

. N a me : O r g a n i za t i on :

C hr i s W e s t F M M I

J e f f H a r r i n g ton A M E C ( F M M I c o n t r a c t or )

E d d i e A l

- R a y e s T r i n i t y C o n s u l t a n t s ( F M M I c o n t r a c t or )

J a y S p e h a r F M M I

T od d W ea v e r F r ee p or t

- M c M o R a n

E u g e n e C h e n E P A R9

G e o f f r e y G l a s s

M a n n y A q u i t a ni a E P A R9

E P A R9

C h a r l o t t e W i th e y E P A R9
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Lajuan Cecile Bailey v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00200

- CR

Trial court case number: 1298261

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

A supplemental clerk’s record that complies with our Order of Abatement has been filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated

.

T he clerk’s record reflects that appellant is indigent for purposes of appellate costs. The

clerk’s record has been f iled. The court reporter is directed to file in this Court, within 30 days

of the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record in the appeal

.

A ppellant ’ s brief must filed with in 30 days after the reporter’s record is filed.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 11, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from First
Hartford Corp., 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                        156,225
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 268,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                   73,493
<INVENTORY>                                   673,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              350,994
<PP&E>                                      5,440,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                905,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7,152,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,418,256
<BONDS>                                     8,420,197
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    1,254,089
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,920,723)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7,152,665
<SALES>                                    12,696,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           25,225,665
<CGS>                                       7,910,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 439,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            3,006,377
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,075,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            12,794,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                  100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        12,694,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               12,694,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    4.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    4.11
                                               


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOHN VETTER AND ASHLEY JONES,

Petitioners

v.

ANTHONY MILLER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 234 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EX-10.25



 Exhibit 10.26 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 

STANDARD EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SUBLICENSING TERMS 

This Fourth Amendment to the Standard Exclusive License Agreement With Sublicensing Terms (also known as Agreement A3288), dated October 7, 2003, amended as
of November 2004 by First Amendment to the Standard Exclusive License Agreement with Sublicensing Terms, amended as of December 3, 2004 by AGTC Side Letter Amendments and Clarifications of License Agreements, amended as of February 25th 2009 by
Second Amendment to the Standard Exclusive License Agreement With Sublicensing Terms and amended as of March 30, 2010 by AGTC Letter Agreement Third Amendment and Clarifications of JHU/UFRF License Agreement (the “License
Agreement”) is made as of this 17th day of December, 2013 by and among Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“AGTC”), the University of
Florida Research Foundation, Inc., a non-stock, non-profit Florida corporation (“UFRF”) and Johns Hopkins University, a Maryland corporation (“JHU”). 

WHEREAS, AGTC, UFRF and JHU (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to amend certain terms of the License Agreement; 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree to amend the License
Agreement as follows: 
 1. The first sentence in Section 3.1.2 is amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing with:
“Licensee agrees to [**]” 
 2. Fourth Amendment Fee: Company shall pay to UFRF/JHU within thirty (30) days of the signing
and delivery of this Fourth Amendment an amendment fee of [**]. 
 Except as hereby amended, all terms and conditions of the original License Agreement
remain unchanged and the License Agreement, as amended hereby, in full force and effect. 
 In Witness Whereof, the Parties have caused these
presents to be executed in one or more counterparts as of the day and year above written. 
  

									
	APPLIED GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION	 		 	UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
					
	By:	 	/s/ Susan B. Washer	 		 	By:	 	/s/ David L. Day
		 	 Susan B. Washer
 President and CEO

Date: 12/17/13
	 		 		 	 David L. Day
 Director

Office of Technology Licensing
 Date: 1/28/14


  

									
		 		 	JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Wesley D. Blakeslee LPA
		 		 		 		 	 Name: Wesley D. Blakeslee, UD, CLP
 Title:
Executive Director
 Date: January 10, 2014


 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. DOUBLE
ASTERISKS [**] DENOTE OMISSIONS.
EXHIBIT 11

                       FARAH INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES


         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

Net income per share is based on  weighted  average  shares of common  stock and
common stock equivalents outstanding. Stock options are included as common stock
equivalents under the treasury stock method, where dilutive. Additional dilution
from the Company's  convertible  subordinated  debentures,  which are not common
stock equivalents, is not material. Net loss per share is based only on weighted
average shares of common stock outstanding.

In February 1997, the Financial  Accounting  Standards Board issued Statement of
Financial  Accounting  Standards No. 128 (SFAS 128),  "Earnings Per Share." SFAS
128 superseded APB Opinion No. 15,  "Earnings Per Share." SFAS 128 requires dual
presentation  of basic and diluted  earnings per share on the face of the income
statement for entities with complex  capital  structures.  SFAS 128 is effective
for  annual  and  interim  periods  ending  after  December  15,  1997.  Earlier
application  is not permitted.  Implementation  of SFAS 128 would not have had a
material  impact on the Company's  earnings per share for the second  quarter of
fiscal 1997 or the six months ended May 4, 1997.




<PAGE>
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32337 (f rev)

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Zachary A. GOODING

Staff Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 24 April 2017

________________________

Military Judge: Donald R. Eller.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 8 months, 

and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 22 May 2015 by SpCM convened at Aviano Air Base, Italy.

For Appellant: Major Isaac C. Kennen, USAF; Major Virginia M. Bare, 

USAF.

For Appellee: Major Colin F. Delaney, USAF; Captain Matthew L. Tusing, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and SPERANZA, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 
United States v. Gooding, No. ACM S32337 (f rev)

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

MICAH L. SMITH

Deputy Clerk of the Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00135-CR

Darrell MOSQUEDA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR4036

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2016

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED, DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal 

is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Appointed appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

granted.1

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH 

 1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition 

for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion 

is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Cash Flow Statement for the month
ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         468,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,709,357
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,409,093)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,193,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,186,440
<PP&E>                                      67,951,178
<DEPRECIATION>                            (24,509,871)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,590,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,852,287
<BONDS>                                     19,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,834,445
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,403,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,590,654
<SALES>                                     38,664,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,388,447
<CGS>                                       21,402,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,221,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,346,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,240,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,523,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                   910,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,266,646
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03


</TABLE>