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


                                                                Exhibit 10.25


                             [LOGO]


July 14, 1999                                           Eric M. DeMarco
                                                   EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
                                                    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Kevin Claudio
14405 Seabridge Lane
San Diego, CA 92128


Kevin,

I am pleased to offer you the position of Director of Business Operations,
reporting directly to me. I am confident that you will make a significant
contribution to the growth and progress of the Titan Corporation. I believe
you will be provided with a challenging and gratifying work environment
conducive to the development and fulfillment of your professional objectives.

Your annual salary will be $129,000 and, subject to the approval of the Board
of Directors, we would like to offer you 30,000 shares of Titan stock under
our key employee Stock Option Plan. As part of Titan's Management by
Objective Bonus Plan you will have the opportunity to earn up to 25% of your
salary by achieving the planned profits and cash flow for Titan and by
meeting your individual objectives. Additionally, you will receive a car
allowance of $300 per month. Finally, if during your first year of employment
you are terminated for any reason other than cause you will receive 12 months
of salary as severance. If during your second year of employment you are
terminated for any reason other than cause you will receive 6 months salary.

Titan has an excellent fringe benefit package including medical, dental and
vision plans, life insurance, 401K retirement plan, and paid time off policy.
Paid Time Off (PTO) for you will start at 160 hours, plus holidays. As part
of Titan's effort to maintain a drug free workplace, you will be required to
complete a drug screen following acceptance of this offer. This offer is
contingent upon completion of the drug screen and negative test results.
Please understand that your acceptance of this offer does not constitute the
creation of a contract of employment. This letter is a statement of Titan's
desire to employ you with the understanding that your employment may be
discontinued at the will of either party by notice to the other. This letter
supersedes any prior verbal representations which may have been made to you.

Kevin, I look forward to welcoming you as a member of the Titan team and
trust that it will be mutually beneficial association. If you concur, we
would like you to begin work as soon as is practical, preferably on Monday,
August 2, 1999.

Sincerely,


/s/ Eric DeMarco

Eric M. DeMarco
Executive Vice President
Chief Financial Officer


Offer Accepted:    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]                Date:   7/14/99
               -----------------------------           -------------------


                3033 SCIENCE PARK ROAD, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
                       (619) 552-9556 -- FAX (619) 552-9651
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYSTEMS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE FISCAL PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,595
<PP&E>                                         132,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,607,444
<BONDS>                                      2,785,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     54,764
<COMMON>                                        23,882
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,127,083)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,131
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  763,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (490,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (490,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 305,647
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                286,588
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,780
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013079EN.01000101.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/1

---

2013/C 79/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 71, 9.3.2013

OJ C 71, 9.3.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 63, 2.3.2013

OJ C 55, 23.2.2013

OJ C 46, 16.2.2013

OJ C 38, 9.2.2013

OJ C 32, 2.2.2013

OJ C 26, 26.1.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. ST. PETERSBURG PRINTING CO., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. R-137.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                           Statement on Computation of
                               Per Share Earnings

                  (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Years Ended January 31,
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                       1998            1997            1996
                                     ---------       --------        --------
<S>                                  <C>             <C>             <C>
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding
  during the year                       2,087           2,076           1,862
Effect of dilutive stock
  options; net of shares
  assumed repurchased at
  average market                         --              --              --
                                     --------        --------        --------
Weighted average common
  share and common
  share equivalents                     2,087           2,076           1,862
                                     ========        ========        ========

Net Loss as reported                 $(41,599)       $(16,693)       $(13,424)
                                     ========        ========        ========

Adjustment for dilative effect
  of subsidiary stock options            --            (1,422)         (1,249)
                                     --------        --------        --------
Net (Loss) Income Per Earnings
  Per Share Calculation              $(41,602)       $(18,115)       $(14,673)
                                     ========        ========        ========

Earnings per share:

Net Loss as reported
Basic                                $ (20.50)       $  (8.73)       $  (7.88)
Diluted                                (20.50)          (8.73)          (7.88)
</TABLE>

(1) Not dilutive.

See Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements regarding the earnings per
share calculation.


                                       148
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2

                                   AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO
                                    DAY RUNNER, INC.
                                 1995 STOCK OPTION PLAN


              Section 3 of the Day Runner, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan is
hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "3. SHARES RESERVED. The maximum aggregate number of Shares
                  reserved for issuance pursuant to the Plan shall be 2,400,000
                  shares or the number of shares of stock to which such shares
                  shall be adjusted as provided in Section 10 of the Plan. Such
                  number of Shares may be set aside out of authorized but
                  unissued Shares not reserved for any other purpose, or out of
                  issued Shares acquired for and held in the treasury of the
                  Company from time to time.

                  Shares subject to, but not sold or issued under, any Option
                  terminating, expiring or canceled for any reason prior to its
                  exercise in full, shall again become available for Options
                  thereafter granted under the Plan, and the same shall not be
                  deemed an increase in the number of Shares reserved for
                  issuance under the Plan. Any Shares which may be tendered,
                  actually or by attestation, by an Optionee as full or partial
                  payment in connection with the exercise of any Option under
                  the Plan shall again be available for Options thereafter
                  granted during the remainder of the term of the Plan."



Dated:  September 30, 1999
# C_2014072EN.01000301.xml

| 11.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 March 2014

2014/C 72/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3881 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4627 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83380 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8735 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2192 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2820 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,348 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,34 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2012 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4984 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0742 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5359 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5419 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7733 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6407 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7594 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 480,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9187 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5232 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6555 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 856,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5575 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,769 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 50,5218 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,945 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2354 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,3035 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,4555 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3881

JPY

Japanese yen

143,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4627

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83380

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8735

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2192

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2820

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,348

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,34

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2012

RON

Romanian leu

4,4984

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0742

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5359

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5419

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7733

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6407

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7594

KRW

South Korean won

1 480,55

ZAR

South African rand

14,9187

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5232

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6555

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 856,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5575

PHP

Philippine peso

61,769

RUB

Russian rouble

50,5218

THB

Thai baht

44,945

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2354

MXN

Mexican peso

18,3035

INR

Indian rupee

84,4555

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Vincent DiCHIARANTE and Anna Mae DiChiarante, Appellants, v. Floyd J. SMITH et al., Appellees.

No. 73-830.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### Devany, Dennis (OST) From: Don Davison [don.davison@verizon.net] Sent:- •**C.;b'k,'~,** ",,",Saturday, February 13, 20108:03 AM To:"·' ': •• , 'Devahy, D.ennis (OST) Subject: Plattsburgh air service ",**HeU~,** ,.: , ","".' I am

# a small business owner inPlattsburghNY. I would like to see Cape Air continue service to our community, and not Colgan. Ibelieve Cape Air's lower costs, more frequent flights, and Colgan's questionable business practices and safety record should be considered. Thanks for your time. ' DonaldDavison Plattsburgh, NY

1

----- ----,------ ------­
ABRAHAM FREDERICK 

BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4623

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 25, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Courtenay H. Miller, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen Lynn Bonjour, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Douglas HELTON, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Bonnie J. Helton, and Bonnie H. Helton, individually, Appellees.

No. 70-954.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Greene, Appellant.

[737 NYS2d 32]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered February 9, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Reversal is required as a result of the trial court’s denial of defendant’s cause challenge to a prospective juror.

During voir dire in this domestic violence case, the juror in question informed the court that both she and her sister had been victims of domestic violence in 1986, and asserted that she was “not sure [she] would be able to be impartial.” While she responded affirmatively to queries by the prosecutor and the trial court as to whether she could listen to the witnesses with an open mind, assess their credibility, and analytically determine whether or not each witness was telling the truth, she then added “I can try” and that she would “try to keep an open mind about it.”

Further, after acknowledging the sympathy she would probably feel for the victim, when this juror was asked by defense counsel if she could keep her feelings out of the jury deliberations, her answer reflected some doubt: “I can see myself saying * * * I just went through the same situation and * * * there would be some confusion.”

When asked again if she could put aside her own experiences *350and use her “analytical skills to listen to whatever evidence or whatever testimony is presented,” and “keep an open mind,” she stated: “I think I can, I think I can keep an open mind and not be judgmental right away but then again there’s always that thing behind that * * * I might incorporate.” The court insisted that she give *“a*yes or no answer” to the question whether or not she could “give this man a fair trial,” to which she replied, “I think I can.”

Although there is no talismanic expurgatory oath to prove that a prospective juror will render an impartial verdict *(People v Johnson,*94 NY2d 600, 611), and the “occasional use of allegedly equivocal words such as ‘try'” does not automatically demonstrate a prospective juror has a state of mind likely to preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict *(People v Semper,*276 AD2d 263, *lv denied*96 NY2d 738), nevertheless, this juror consistently tempered her assurances with equivocation, even in the face of the court’s demand for “a yes or no answer.” Since the juror herself called into question her ability to render an impartial verdict, “nothing less than a personal, unequivocal assurance of impartiality” was required *(People v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 364), and it is insufficient to state that she thought she could be impartial or would try to do so *(People v Hausman,*285 AD2d 352). The judgment therefore must be reversed *(id.).*

We find defendant’s remaining contention to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Emissions Modeling Data Files for Proposed Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and 

Fuel Standards

FROM: Margaret Zawacki

Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Rich Mason

Emissions Inventory and Analysis Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-DRAFT-####

DATE: March 13, 2013

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit emissions modeling data files which were used 

in the air quality modeling for the proposed Tier 3 motor vehicle emissions and fuel standards. 

The emissions modeling analyses are discussed in the Emissions Inventory for Air Quality

Modeling Technical Support Document: Proposed Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 

Standards. The air quality modeling analysis results are able to be replicated by using the data 

files provided here and the information in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document: Proposed Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. Following is a brief 

description of the information contained on the enclosed DVD.

The files contain county level delimited summaries for criteria pollutants and select hazardous air 

pollutants (e.g. benzene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, ethanol) by

emissions modeling sector for the scenarios listed below. Summaries are included by month 

using average day emissions and separately with annual totals for the following scenarios: 2005 

baseline, 2017 reference case, 2017 control case, 2030 reference case, and 2030 control case. 

The files contained on the enclosed disc are “tier3_database_description final.docx”, 

“tier3_annual_county_sector.xlsx” and “county_month_oct142011.mdb”.

Attachments

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway,

Justices

I, Corbin R . Davis , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

______________ ___________________________ Clerk March 31, 2010

p0324 

# Order

March 31, 2010

139884

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 139884

COA: 286046

Mason CC: 07

- 001876

- FC

WILLIAM FRANCIS COCKREAM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Cour t, the application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2009

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 304 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 304

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to deny annuity benefits with 
        respect to any Member of Congress convicted of a felony.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to deny annuity benefits with 
        respect to any Member of Congress convicted of a felony.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 8312 
of title 5, United States Code, relating to denial of annuities for 
conviction of certain offenses, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(d) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be 
paid an annuity under subchapter III of this chapter, or under chapter 
84, on the basis of service as a Member (as defined in section 8331(2) 
or 8401(20)) if the individual is convicted of any felony under State 
or Federal law, committed on or after the date of the enactment of this 
subsection.''.
    (b) Section 8316(b) of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
refund of contributions and deposits, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) if the individual was convicted of an offense 
        described in subsection (d) of section 8312, for the period 
        after the conviction.''.
    (c) Section 8318(a) of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
restoration of annuity or retired pay, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``is pardoned by the President'' the 
        following: ``(or by the Governor, in the case of a felony under 
        State law described in section 8312(d) of this title) or if the 
        conviction is reversed on appeal in the case of a felony 
        described in section 8312(d) of this title''; and
            (2) by striking the period and inserting the following: 
        ``or, in the case of a reversal, as of the date of the 
        conviction so reversed.''.

                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00051

- CR

Alberto SANCHEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR0864A

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 28, 2018

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal and for expedited issuance of the

mandate. The motion is grante d, and this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We

order the clerk of this court to immediately issue the mandate. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 18.1(c).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH