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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
S.D. WARREN COMPANY'S (THE "COMPANY") CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 1, 1997 AND BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1997 FOUND IN PAGE
16 AND 17, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FINANCIAL
INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 1, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1997
<CASH>                                         180,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                    163,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               437,300
<PP&E>                                       1,165,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 214,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,632,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          257,400
<BONDS>                                        739,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          103,200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     369,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,632,000
<SALES>                                      1,405,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,405,600
<CGS>                                        1,115,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,263,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Linda Louise KILLMAN and Peter John Killman v. Jennifer Louise GURLEY.

No. 61818.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: Jennifer Louise Gurley, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 354 So.2d 755.

Writ denied.
Project No.: 0172.07.029.030 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

 Outgoing Call

Date: 12/03/09 Time: 2:00 pm EST

Company Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire

 Merrimack Power Plant

 

Contact Name: Allen Palmer

Phone No.:(603) 634-2439

Name: Lydia Lambert Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : FGD Systems and FGD Wastewater Treatment Systems Operation and Verification

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM I left a message for Mr. Doug McDonald, who is the 

environmental safety contact. In my message, I explained to Mr. McDonald that I was calling to collect 

information regarding the operation of the FGD systems and FGD wastewater treatment systems at the 

Merrimack power plant.

On Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 2:00 PM I contacted Mr. Martin Murray, who is the public contact. Mr. 

Murray transferred my call to Mr. Allen Palmer, who is the NPDES contact. I explained to Mr. Palmer that I 

was calling to collect information regarding the operation of the FGD systems and FGD wastewater treatment 

systems at the Merrimack power plant. 

Mr. Palmer explained that the power plant does not currently operate a FGD systems or a FGD wastewater 

treatment system. Mr. Palmer stated that the FGD system and FGD wastewater treatment system are currently 

under construction and will not be completed for a couple of years. Mr. Palmer stated that the plant does not 

know when the FGD systems will begin operating.
#### John L. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. Honorable Warren H. EDWARDS, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Division A, Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-91.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1970.

*721J. Thomas Bowden, Orlando, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks mandamus to compel his discharge and the dismissal of the pending criminal accusation against him of driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. His predicate lies in the asserted denial of a speedy trial as provided for in F.S.1967, Section 915.01(2), F.S.A.

Upon review of the entire record, inclusive of respondent’s return, it is clear that petitioner’s right to a speedy trial has been violated and that he is entitled to the relief requested.

Five times the defendant filed his demand. No question exists that at least three of the demands were timely made at the beginning of the term of court and in proper form. Trial was withheld because in one instance of the unavailability of the state’s witness and in two instances because of a crowded docket resulting in conflicts of trials. These were not caused by the petitioner.

Quite candidly the respondent does not seriously contend the unavailability of a witness is sufficient to toll the statute. Dickoff v. Dewell, 1942, 152 Fla. 240, 9 So.2d 804; Feger v. Fish, as Judge, 1932, 106 Fla. 564, 143 So. 605.

Even though the state in this case did not “cause” the delay which arose through conflicts in trials, neither did the petitioner occasion it through any fault or affirmative action on his part. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any showing that the state employed all reasonable means available to give a speedy trial. Dickey v. Circuit Court, Gadsden County, Quincy, Fla., Fla. 1967, 200 So.2d 521.

Our Supreme Court in the recent case of State ex rel. Johnson v. Edwards, 233 So.2d 393, opinion filed March 18, 1970, in confirming that the purpose of the speedy trial statute is to prevent an “unreasonable delay”, stated “such delay includes not only delay caused by the state, but also that which it can reasonably prevent, or which is not caused by the accused” and “the accused is entitled to a speedy trial and the only delay which is to be excused is delay which is caused by the accused.”

The instant case falls squarely within these guidelines of “unreasonable delay”.

Accordingly, the peremptory writ of mandamus is issued with directions that the accused be discharged from the prosecution.

It is so ordered.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., and LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            6960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    96162
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,521
<PP&E>                                         366,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 580,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,999
<BONDS>                                        191,227
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           106
<OTHER-SE>                                     224,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   580,065
<SALES>                                        370,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               370,170
<CGS>                                          304,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  304,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2780)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  32369
<INCOME-TAX>                                     13789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              18580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     18580
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.73


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000040656                  
<NAME>                        General Semiconductor, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
                               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2,303
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  64,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                   736
<INVENTORY>                                    42,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,004
<PP&E>                                         225,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 568,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          66,448
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       369
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   568,349
<SALES>                                        96,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               96,961
<CGS>                                          72,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  86,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               58
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.12
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>




                                                                   June 29, 2001

Mr. Thomas Chown
79 Leuty Avenue
Toronto M4E 2R2
Ontario
Canada

Dear Mr. Chown:

     By letter agreement dated April 30, 2001, IVP Technology Corporation (the
"Company") agreed to settle the amount outstanding to you for services rendered
by June 28, 2001, the terms of which you agreed to by countersigning that letter
agreement. Since the date of that letter, the Company has not been able to
secure financing or other funds to satisfy its compensation obligations to you
in cash. Accordingly, as is the Company's right in that letter agreement, the
Company hereby satisfies its outstanding compensation obligation to you by
issuing 4,312,000 shares (the "Shares") of common stock registered on Form S-8
which shares are valued in the aggregate at approximately $345,000, based upon
the closing bid price per share on June 28, 2001.

     The actual amount of the proceeds you generate from the sale of the Shares
shall be deducted from the amount owed to you as of the date hereof.
Certificates evidencing the Shares will be delivered to you after the Shares
have been registered as described in the April 30, 2001 letter.

                                           Very truly yours,

                                           /s/ John Maxwell
                                           ----------------------------
                                           John Maxwell
                                           President, IVP Technology Corporation
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 779 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 779

       To reauthorize the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1976.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1993

     Mr. Manton (for himself, Mr. Studds, and Mr. Young of Alaska) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                     Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To reauthorize the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1976.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS CONVENTION ACT OF 1976.

    Section 10 of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
971h) is amended by striking ``1989,'' and all that follows through the 
end of the section and inserting the following: ``1993, 1994, 1995, 
1996, and 1997.''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                       3,415,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               55,976,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,532,000
<INVENTORY>                                 75,831,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           143,706,000
<PP&E>                                     188,831,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             114,986,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             597,268,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       68,971,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,233,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 165,897,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               597,268,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           118,426,000
<CGS>                                       68,382,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,611,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,558,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,767,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,257,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,812,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,445,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,445,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.102


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	$25,000.00	Issued:
    May 18, 2018


 


Whereas,
James C. Heckman (“Holder”) desires to lend and TheMaven, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”),
desires to borrow the principal sum of US$25,000.00 (“Principal Amount”) to provide working capital to Borrower.


 


Now,
therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Borrower hereby agrees to the
following:


 


1.
For value received, Borrower hereby promises to pay to Holder or its permitted assigns the Principal Amount, together with
(i) interest on the unpaid Principal Amount at a rate per annum equal to the applicable minimum federal rate on a non-
compounding basis calculated on the basis of a 365-day year, and (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs
incurred in collecting or enforcing payment hereof. Holder understands that this promissory note (“Note”)
may only be assigned with the written consent of Borrower, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.


 


2.
The entire unpaid Principal Amount and any accrued but unpaid interest shall be fully and immediately payable on demand by Holder
(“Maturity Date”). Borrower shall have the right, without premium, charge or penalty, to make payments of Principal
Amount at any time before the Maturity Date. Any and all prepayments shall be applied first to interest, then to the outstanding
Principal Amount. Any and all prepayments shall be accompanied by a notice in writing addressed to Holder identifying such payment
as a prepayment, and specifying the amount of Principal Amount being prepaid.


 


3.
Payments of principal of and interest on this Note are to be made in lawful money of the United States of America, in the form
of cash, certified check, wire transfer of same-day funds, or money order, as the Holder may designate in writing.


 


4.
Borrower and all endorsers, guarantors, sureties, accommodation parties hereof and all other parties liable or to become liable
for all or any part of this indebtedness, severally waive presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest,
and notice of nonpayment of this Note and expressly agree that this Note and any payment coming due under it may be extended or
otherwise modified from time to time without in any way affecting their liability hereunder.


 


5.
This Note and all issues hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Washington.


 


	 	THEMAVEN,
    INC. 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Josh Jacobs
	 	Name:	Josh
    Jacobs
	 	Title:	President
Oct 14 2011 2:5SPn HP LRSERJET FRX P-2 

14O0 Noflh Hurstboume Parkway : ^ -• \ •; ^ 7 

Louijvlfle, KY 40223 

502.329.3000 Tel 

October 13.2011 

U.S. Departmfint of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington. DC 20590 

Subject: Docket No. FAA-2011 -0915; Directorate Identifier 2011 •NM-020-AD 

To Whom It May Concern: 

United Parcel Service (UPS) would like to submit the following comments in response to the 

subject Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

We take exception to the proposed AD baaed on a lack of justification. The AD is being 

proposed in response to a, report of a fatigue crack in the 17-4PH material lower cargo door latch 

pins. We luiderstond that the concern is that adjacent latch pins may also have fatigue cracking 

and may not be able to carry residual Umit loads in case of the failure of one latch pin. 

The lower forwejxi and aft cargo door latching structure each includes 8 latch pins. These are 

part of a fail safe design, that should preclude critical failure with the failure of one element. 

UPS understands that this AD is being proposed due to one reported broken latch pin on one 

aircraft, with the adjacent latch pins found undamaged, UPS notes that approximately 1415 747s 

(up to model variant 747-8) have been produced by Boeing with sixteen of these same latch pins 

installed over the last 40+ years. The world 747 fleet has accumulated over 10,8 million flints. 

UPS also notes that the 747-400 Maintenance Planning Document includes a detailed inspection 

of the lower cargo door latch mechanisms, which includes the latch pins, at 2 year or 2,000 flight 

cycle intervals, whichever occurs first. The proposed AD would require repetitive visual 

inspections at 1,600 flight cycle intervals, a modest increase in frequency over the existing 

maintenance program which has already proven successfLQ at detecting damage to adjacent latch 

pins. 
Oct 14 2011 2:55Pn HP LRSERJET FHX p.3 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

October B. 2011 

Page 2 of 2 

In summary, based on the extensive fleet history of these lower cargo door latch pins, without 

reports of adjacent pin failures, and with the existing maintenance program inspections of the 

latch pins, we do not believe this proposed rulemaking is justified, or would provide an 

appreciable injcrease in safety. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. 

Sincerely, 

UNITED PARCEL SERVIE CO. 

iielB. 

director 

Quality Assurance 

DH:SK;jk 

c: Ed Walton 

DanHaddix 

Bruce Nord 

Steve Kratt
257 La. 168

#### Hartwig M. ADLER v. Janet Pintado ADLER.

No. 50977.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Janet Pintado Adler applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 239 So.2d 494.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
**Exhibit 10.3**

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

**BYAND BETWEEN SARA LEE CORPORATION,**

**SARAMAR, LLC AND FARMER BROS. CO.**

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (this “Second Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement is made by Sara Lee Corporation,Saramar, LLC and Farmer Bros. Co. 

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Sara Lee Corporation, Saramar, LLC and Farmer Bros. Co. entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement by and among SaraLee Corporation, Saramar, LLC and Farmer Bros. Co. dated December *2,*2008 (the “Agreement”), and thereafter amended the Agreement by a First Amendment dated February 27, 2009; and 

WHEREAS, Section 10.2 of the Agreement allows the parties to amend the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the parties agreed in Section 6.2 of the Agreement to use their best efforts to demonstrate to certain multiemployer pensionplans described in Section 6.2 of the Agreement that no bond or escrow is required from Farmer Bros. Co. under Section 4204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the regulations promulgatedthereunder; and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to permit the Western Conference of TeamstersPension Fund to grant Farmer Bros. Co. a variance from the bond/escrow requirement under Section 4204 of ERISA and the regulations thereunder, and 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 

I. 

Section 6.2(d)(iii) of the Agreement shall be amended by placing a period after the phrase “. . . is not paid”in the first sentence and by deleting the remainder of such sentence. 

II. 

This amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all parties hereto had signed the same document.

III. 

This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with and otherwise subject to the provisions of Section 10.8 of the Agreement. 

IV. 

Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in fullforce and effect as prior to this Second Amendment. 

**[signatures appear on next page]**

SARA LEE CORPORATIONBy: /s/ Helen N. KaminskiName: Helen N. KaminskiTitle: Assistant General Counsel, Corporate & Securities and Assistant SecretaryDate: 12-16-09
 
SARAMAR, LLCBy: /s/ Mark S. SilverName: Mark S. SilverTitle: Vice President and Assistant SecretaryDate: 12/16/09
 
FARMER BROS. CO.By: /s/ Drew H. WebbName: Drew H. WebbTitle: COODate: 12-017-09