alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 4.3 Philip A. McKeaney, Jr.'s consulting agreement.

Philip A. McKeaney, Jr.
14 Lenape Road
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002


January 4, 2001

Stephen Williams
CFI Mortgage, Inc.
601 Cleveland Street
Clearwater, Florida 33755

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for allowing me to work with your organization in its search for
appropriate acquisition candidates. I am looking forward to developing a close
relationship with you and your firm, hopefully, last long into the future.

To confirm our arrangement I will bill you monthly for my time. The rate for my
services has been set at One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars per hour ($125.00/hour)
not including any travel or contract related expenses. Payment is due upon
presentation of the invoice. All payments shall be made to Clones American
Corporation.

Again, thank you for your confidence. Should you have any questions please feel
free to call me at your convenience.

Sincerely,
/s/  Philip A. McKeaney
Philip A. McKeaney
# Official Journal C 266/11 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 266 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6011 August 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 266

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6011 August 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2017/C 266/01 | Report on budgetary and financial management — Section I: European Parliament — financial year 2016 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

2017/C 266/01

Report on budgetary and financial management — Section I: European Parliament — financial year 2016

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brandon H. LaVerne, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PCM, Inc.; and

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date:   April 30, 2015 | /s/   Brandon H. LaVerne  |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Brandon   H. LaVerne      |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
Computation of Earnings Per Share on Primary and Fully Diluted Basis

                                                                Year Ended
                                                                December 31,
                                                                    1996
                                                           --------------------
Average Shares Outstanding
   Net income                                                     $  912,953.00
   Average number of common shares outstanding                     1,316,372.00
   Earnings per average shares outstanding (1)                    $         .69

Primary
   Net income                                                     $  912,953.00
   Average number of common shares outstanding                     1,316,372.00
   Add incremental shares for stock options                           12,672.00
                                                           --------------------
   Adjusted average shares                                         1,329,044.00
   Primary earnings per share (1)                                 $         .69

Fully Diluted
   Net income                                                     $  912,953.00
   Average number of common shares outstanding                     1,316,372.00
   Add incremental shares for stock options                            7,280.00
                                                           ------------------
   Adjusted average shares                                         1,323,652.00

   Fully diluted earnings per share (1)                           $         .69

(1)      Due to the immaterial  differences,  computed before rounding,  between
         primary and fully  diluted  earnings per share and earnings per average
         shares  outstanding,  earnings per average shares  outstanding  only is
         reported.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 800174

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee

v.


### Michael D. CARDONA Staff Sergeant ( E

- 6 ) , U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

________________________ _ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major John L. Ferriter, USMC. For Appellant: Lieutenant Gregory Hargis
, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 13 September 2018

____________________ _____ Before F ULTON , C RISFIELD , and R USSELL , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the co nvening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

FOR THE COURT

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13512]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of the 
Secretary, Commerce.
    Title: The Research Performance Progress Report.
    OMB Control Number: 0690-0032.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,550.
    Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,750.
    Needs and Uses: The development of the Research Performance 
Progress Report (RPPR) resulted from an initiative of the Research 
Business Models (RBM), an Interagency Working Group of the Social, 
Behavioral & Economic Research, Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Science (CoS), a committee of the National Science and Technology 
Council (NSTC). One of the RBM Subcommittee's priority areas was to 
create greater consistency in the administration of Federal research 
awards. Given the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary and 
interagency research, it is important for Federal agencies to manage 
awards in a similar fashion. The RPPR is an OMB approved uniform format 
to be used by Federal agencies in submission of progress reports that 
support research and research-related activities. It is intended to 
replace other performance reporting formats currently in use by Federal 
agencies. However, the RPPR does not change the performance reporting 
requirements specified in 2 CFR 200.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-
profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or 
Tribal government; Federal government.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: The Federal Financial Assistance Management 
Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-107), and 2 CFR 200.328.
    This information collection request may be viewed at 
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce 
collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#400f0912011f1335222d293333292f2e002f2d226e252f306e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84cbcdd6c5dbd7f1e6e9edf7f7edebeac4ebe9e6aae1ebf4aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-13512 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-17-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### GENE’S CATERING SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Morton Towers Smorgasbord Restaurant, and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Leah NEWBERGER and Meyer Newberger, her husband, Respondents.

No. 73-399.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, INC. of Florida, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Raymond J. HEREDIA and Muriel B. Heredia, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

*511Jepeway, Gassen & Jepeway, Harris & Sirkin, Miami, for appellant.

Marks, Keith, Mack & Lewis, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The trial judge has entered in this cause a judgment entitled, “Summary Final Judgment for Defendants”. The defendants as appellees here have urged that the judgment was actually entered upon an oral stipulation which was not made a part of the record. Such stipulations cannot be the basis for action in the appellate court. See Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 348, 14 So. 841 (1894); RCP 1.030(d), 30 F.S.A. In addition, the judgment of the court recites that:

> “This cause came on to be heard before me upon the Motion of the Defendant-counterclaimant for Summary Judgment and upon the Motion of the Plaintiff-counterdefendant for Summary Judgment, and the Court, having examined the pleadings on file herein and the depositions, together with the affidavits submitted in support of the motions, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is the finding of the Court:”

Accepting the record as presented, we must reverse the judgment appealed because there is clearly a genuine issue of material fact as to the agency of the defendant-husband to bind the defendant-wife.

The suit was instituted by the appellants to enforce a convenant in a lease granting appellants, who were the leasees, the right to purchase the real property leased to them. The appellees defended upon the ground that the lease was void because it was not signed by the appellee wife and the title to the real property was held as an estate by the entirety. Appellees further filed their counterclaim for removal of the appellants as tenants because of the alleged invalidity of the lease. The judgment entered denied the counterclaim, thus holding the lease, valid as a lease but declined to enforce the option contained in the lease thus holding the option invalid. It therefore appears that there is a genuine issue as to the validity of the lease and the option. The only basis in the record for the claimed invalidity of the option is the failure of the wife to sign the lease, but this holding would not support the judgment upon the counterclaim.

We determine from our examination of the record that the genuine issue of material fact above specified does exist. Craft v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 81 Fla. 55, 87 So. 41 (1921); DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 532; Brammer v. Ellison, 127 Colo. 428, 257 P.2d 430 (1953); Gordon v. O’Brien, 320 Mass. 739, 71 N.E.2d 221 (1947).

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-4446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAKEEL ABDUL SABUR, a/k/a Willie Lee Seward,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CR-99-73)

Submitted: November 3, 2000 Decided: November 21, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig P. Tiller, DAVIDSON, SAKOLOSKY, MOSELEY & TILLER, P.C.,

Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United

States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States

Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wakeel Abdul Sabur appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to withdraw guilty plea and the sentence imposed as a

result of the guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion denying Sabur’s motion to withdraw his

plea and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sabur, No.

CR-99-73 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2000). Moreover, we disagree with

Sabur’s contention on appeal that his plea agreement precluded

enhancement of his sentence following a finding that he was a

career criminal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
257 La. 177

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alfred JUDSON, Jr.

No. 51031.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 1970.

In re: Alfred Judson, Jr., applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The application is denied. The showing made is not sufficient to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction.
No. 101.

#### J. L. Lancaster et al., Receivers *v.*Bernice S. Graham.

Error to the Court of Civil Appeals, 4th Supreme Judicial District, of the State of Texas.'

Submitted January 4, 1926;

Decided January 11, 1926.

*Messrs. F. H. Prendergast, T. D. Gresham, George Thompson*and *Robert L: W. Thompson*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. J. C. George*for defendant in error.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the

authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; *Jett Bros. Distilling Co.*v. *Carrollton,*252 U. S. 1, 5, 6.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Pearson plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin Freestone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 27, 2014



/s/ Robin FreestoneRobin FreestoneChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                        GTE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Calculation of Earnings (Loss) per Common Share
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                      March 31,
                                                            ------------------------------
                                                                1999              1998
                                                            ------------      ------------
                                                       (In Millions, Except Per-Share Amounts)
<S>                                                         <C>               <C>         
Net income (loss):
     Before extraordinary charges                           $        912      $        142
     Extraordinary charges                                           (30)             (320)
                                                            ------------      ------------

        Consolidated net income (loss)                      $        882      $       (178)
                                                            ============      ============

Average basic common shares                                          969               959

Adjustments to basic common shares:
     Add - Employees' stock and stock option plans                     7                 9
                                                            ------------      ------------
Adjusted average diluted common shares                               976               968
                                                            ============      ============

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:
     Basic (1)
        Before extraordinary charges                        $        .94      $        .15
        Extraordinary charges                                       (.03)             (.33)
                                                            ------------      ------------
        Consolidated                                        $        .91      $       (.18)
                                                            ============      ============

     Diluted (2)
        Before extraordinary charges                        $        .93      $        .15
        Extraordinary charges                                       (.03)             (.33)
                                                            ------------      ------------
        Consolidated                                        $        .90      $       (.18)
                                                            ============      ============
</TABLE>



(1)  Computed by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the
     weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period.

(2)  Reflects the potential dilution that could occur if stock options or other
     contracts to issue common stock were exercised.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Statements of Operations and Consolidated Balance Sheets and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                          16,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,824
<ALLOWANCES>                                       217
<INVENTORY>                                     18,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,610
<PP&E>                                         569,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                 262,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 386,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,481
<BONDS>                                        319,485
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                    (93,602)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   386,396
<SALES>                                        327,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,349
<CGS>                                           94,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  279,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,987)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,045
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (319)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,261)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)


</TABLE>
NO. 07-01-0492-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C JUNE 28, 2002

______________________________ TROY LEE DON HARMS, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 34,541-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESI DING

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS, and JOHNSON, JJ. Troy Lee Do n Harm s (app ellan t) app eals fr om a judgment rev

oking his community superv ision and adj udicat ing h im gui lty of agg rava ted ro bbery . We affirm. Pursuant to a plea bargain, on March 13, 1995, a ppell ant en tered a plea of g uilty to a charge of aggravated robbery. The trial court deferr ed a finding of guil t and placed appellant

on 10 years

community sup ervisi on. On November 15, 2001, the State filed a motion to proceed with the adjudication of guilt on the original charge to which appellant plead tr ue. The trial court found that appel lant had vi olated the terms of his community supervis ion, revoked that superv ision, adjudi cated him gui lty of agg ravated ro bbery, andsentenced him to 15 year s imprisonment. Appellant timel y noticed hi s appeal and counsel
was appointed. The latt er moved to w ithdraw after filing a br ief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S . Ct. 1396, 18 L.E d.2d 493 (1967) and r epresenting that he had searched the record and f ound no arguable grounds for revers al. The motion and br ief illustrat ed that appellant w as informed of

his rights to review the appellate record and file his own brie f. So too d id we inform appellant t hat any bri ef he cared to file had to be filed by June 27, 2002 . To date, appellant has filed no bri ef. After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error. App ellant

represented to the court v ia the plea admonis hment papers he si gned that h e was 1) properlyindicted, 2) represented by

legal couns el, and 3) mental ly competent when he entered his pl ea. Moreov er, n o appeal wastaken wit hin 30 days from the date of appellant’s guilty plea complaining of erro r oc curring at that time. Thus, we have no jurisdict ion over any

purported err

or arising from or

prior to th e plea hearing

. Manuel v. State, 944 S.W .2d 6 58, 6 61-6 2 (Te x. Crim. App. 199 9); See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p . 2001)

. Finally , appellant plea d true to the al legations contained in the motion to adjudicate g uilt, and the punishment lev ied was w ithin the rang e provided by statute. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and th e judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Bri an Quinn Ju stice Do not publish

.
#### TERRAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Ardis T. ALLEN, Jr., et al.

No. 62581.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Terral Industries, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Webster.

Writ denied.