alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"Bryan Meshke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/bryan\/","title":"Advisory Committees","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rUZa7N0RMJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/about\/advisory-committees\/\">Advisory Committees<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/about\/advisory-committees\/embed\/#?secret=rUZa7N0RMJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Advisory Committees” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"rUZa7N0RMJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00677-CV

IN RE Gilbert GUEVARA

Original Mandamus Proceeding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator Gilbert Guevara filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on September 26, 

2014. Relator does not adequately identify an underlying proceeding currently pending in any

court in this appellate district, the respondent judge, or the nature of the specific relief sought from 

this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(1-3), (i). In addition, relator’s petition fails to satisfy several 

other requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)-(k). 

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty 

imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of providing this court with a 

record sufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief, including a copy of any order or other 

document showing the matter complained of. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a) (“Relator 

must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 
04-14-00677-CV

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Relator has not 

provided this court with a record sufficient to establish his claim for relief.

Due to the deficiencies in relator’s petition and the lack of an adequate mandamus record, 

we are unable to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion in any way. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1. of this Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         378,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  728,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,487,206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,788,929
<PP&E>                                         210,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,345,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          440,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,000,000
<COMMON>                                        26,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,906,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,345,901
<SALES>                                     19,032,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,032,320
<CGS>                                       13,727,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,779,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               434,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             546,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                577,686
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (160,299)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            737,985
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   737,985
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .232
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .189


</TABLE>
#### CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC. v. GAINES CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 36699.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So.2d 242.
EXHIBIT 10.5





Director Fee Arrangements





The board of directors of Sunshine Financial, Inc., the holding company for Sunshine Savings Bank, is identical to that of the Bank.  No board fees are paid for service on the board of directors of Sunshine Financial, Inc.





The non-employee directors of Sunshine Savings Bank receive compensation for their service on the board of directors of the Bank.  In setting their compensation, the board of directors considers the significant amount of time and level of skill required for director service.  Director compensation is reviewed annually by the compensation committee, which makes recommendations for approval by the board of directors of the Bank.  On June 26, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Bank set its compensation as follows:





•
directors receive $500 for each board meeting attended, except the chairman, who receives $600 per board meeting attended; and


•
board committee members receive $150 for each board committee meeting attended.





Directors who are also employees of Sunshine Savings Bank do not receive any compensation for their service on the Board of Directors or any committees thereof.
EX-10.96



 Exhibit 10.96 

THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING NOTATION IN THIS EXHIBIT INDICATES THAT A CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
AND THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION: [****] 
  

					
	  
 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View, California 94043
	 	



	  	  
 Tel: 650.253.0000

Fax: 650.618.1806
 www.google.com


 January 7, 2014 
 VIA
FIRST CLASS MAIL 
 Joanne Kelly 
 Chief Counsel 

Aol, Inc. 
 22000 AOL Way 

Dulles, Virginia 20166 
 Re: Listed Company [****] Notification

 Dear Joanne, 
 Pursuant to the change-of-control provisions
in agreements between AOL and Google (“Change of Control Provisions”), including but not limited to those in the agreements (as amended) identified below, Google makes the following Listed Company [****] Notification: [****] is hereby
[****] with [****] 
  

	 	•	 	The Amended and Restated Interactive Marketing Agreement between AOL, Inc. and Google Inc., Section 6.5(a)(i) 


	 	•	 	The WebSearch Services Agreement between AOL, Inc. and Google, Inc., Section 6.5(a)(i) 


	 	•	 	The [****] Agreement between Google [****], AOL [****], AOL [****], AOL [****] and AOL [****], Section 11.6.1(a)(i) 


	 	•	 	The [****] Agreement between AOL [****], AOL [****] and Google [****], Section 10.6.1(a)(i) 


	 	•	 	The [****] Agreement between AOL [****] and Google [****], Section 6.5.2(a)(i) 


	 	•	 	The [****] Agreement [****] Agreement [****] between AOL [****] and Google [****], Section 13.1(a)(i) 


	 	•	 	The Marketplace Agreement between AOL, Inc. and Google Inc., Section 21(i)(A) 

 Accordingly, the first
paragraph in each of the Change of Control Provisions, following the header “Change of Control: Change of Control of AOL: Right to Terminate”, shall now read as follows: 

“Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon a Change of Control of [****] involving [****] (including [****]) (the
“Listed Companies”) and their Affiliates, or the direct or indirect successors to or assigns of any of the foregoing (including the Affiliates of such successors and assigns) (all of the above, “Named
Companies”).” 
 Kind regards, 
 Google, Inc.

 cc: 
 President for AOL Media Networks 

AOL Deputy General Counsel 
 AOL Global Operations Limited 

AOL LLC 
 Robert Hickernell, Vice President, AOL Search 

Paul Griffith, Senior Director, Business Development
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1286

MARVELLA WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-00806-GJH)

Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvella Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Abby Uzupis Van Grinsven, BONNER, 

KIERNAN, TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvella Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint with 

prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’ complaint with 

prejudice. See Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assoc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th 

Cir. 1989) (district court has “wide discretion to impose sanctions for a party’s failure to 

comply with its discovery orders”). Accordingly, we grant Williams leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
          to incorporation by Reference in Registration Statements
                             on Form S-3 and S-8


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-39443 on Form S-8 and Registration No. 333-44445 on Form S-3 of Big
Flower Holdings, Inc. of our reports dated June 7, 1999, June 7, 1999, and
June 18, 1999 included as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K/A with regard to the
financial statements of Webcraft, Inc. Employees Accumulated Saving Trust,
Webcraft Employee Savings Trust and Big Flower Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Savings Plus 401(k) Plan, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 1998.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
June 29, 1999
#### Ruth LEWIS, Jr. (Deceased), Lula Lewis, mother, Petitioner, v. A. DUDA & SON COOP. ASSOCIATION and Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43399.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
USPS HEADQUARTERS AIR TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS UNITED
November 6, 2012 Dennis De Yaney EAS & Domestic Analysis Division Office ofAviationAnalysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 400 

### 7th Street 

### S.W., Room 6402 Washington, DC 20590 Re: Essential Air Service- Akutan Dear Mr. DeVaney,**~--·--­**

-**~--** _;

Please be advised that the leadership ofthe U.S. Postal Service reviewed the EAS proposal submitted 

### by Grant Aviation for Essential Air Service (EAS) in the Akutan market. 

### Itis contrary to the Postal Service's policy to pay additional costs related to contracting with the hovercraft service referred to in that proposaL The Postal Service was not involved, invited to become involved, or consulted regarding the project that resulted inthe construction ofa runway on Akun. Thus, we do not understandhow the bill for difficulties arising out ofdecisions made oractions taken during that process could properly be assigned to the Postal Service. Also, perthe stakeholder teleconference held onWednesday, October 24,2012, your office advised Grant Air ofwillingness onyour part to allow Grant to provide service 

### that did not include mail delivery to Akutan. This is not acceptable. Grant Air has met with Postal representatives to cooperate in modifying its proposal to engage inthe movement ofmail within the EAS contract. However, it was apparent during the teleconference thatthe Akutan Borough Hovercraft group has neither negotiated with Grant Air nor provided Grant a solid costproposal that includes agents on both Aklltan and Akun. Grant Airneeds this informationto include ina properlyupdatedproposal. A proposal that is both acceptable to the Departmentof Transportation and that provides for mail service to Akutan should be the final product desired by all parties. We appreciate the DOT EAS program's mission to contract for necessary services in many regions ofthe country, especially inthose regions where service ofany kind is difficult. Itis the Postal Service's mission is to ensure universal door-to-door mail service on a global scale. We

475 L'ENFANT PlAZAsw. ROOM 7912 WASHINGTON, DC 20260-7900 (202} 268-6626 OFFICE,, 

## .

-2- respectfully request that Grant Air have the opportunity to modify and resubmit proposal prior to a final decision beingrendered.
rThank/you, '--} ' 

### £., 

# tit Manage Air Transportation Operations
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22-BG-398

IN RE AZUBUIKE AKUBUEZE OSEMENE, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 496245)

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(DDN 101-17; BDN 18-105)

(Decided July 14, 2022)

Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, Senior

Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee concluded that respondent 

Azubuike Akubueze Osemene violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional 

Conduct 1.5(b) and 1.6(a) and engaged in dishonesty during disciplinary 

proceedings. Specifically, the Committee found by clear and convincing evidence 

that respondent failed to provide his client with a written agreement detailing his fee 

or the scope of representation, despite his client’s request for such a written 

statement. It also found that respondent improperly disclosed confidential client 

information in his motion to withdraw. The Committee recommended that 
2

respondent be publicly censured. The Board on Professional Responsibility 

accepted the Committee’s findings and recommendation. Neither respondent nor 

Disciplinary Counsel filed an exception to the Board’s Report and Recommendation. 

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s 

report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the 

Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See In re 

Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no 

exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of 

review becomes even more deferential.”). We see no reason to disregard the Board’s 

conclusions and recommended sanction. See In re Ponds, 876 A.2d 636, 636-37 

(D.C. 2005) (imposing public censure for “improperly disclosing confidential 

information in a motion to withdraw as defense counsel for a client”); see also In re 

Szymkowicz, 124 A.3d 1078, 1088 (D.C. 2015) (“[W]e accept the Board's 

recommendation that the Rule 1.5(b) violation by itself would warrant an informal 

admonition.” (emphasis added)).

 

Accordingly, it is
3

ORDERED that respondent Azubuike Akubueze Osemene is hereby publicly 

censured.
## Co unty Auditor's Fonn/ 9999A Han 'is County. Texas (Rev 

## 04 /01) Acti o n - - --- PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT ----- 

### Styl e PLT . M ONTGOMERY, MELBAJO DEF M ONT GO MER Y, LEO BRIAN Fee 11 9 D e s cnption TRANSCRIPT 

## Comment: 

## Official Receipt 

# CHRIS DANIEL DISTRICT CLERK Case : 201334055 -7 

### Tran s ID 20 8 245 58 7

Amount Payment Check 1989

$310 . 00 Amount Tendered . Payment Amount : Amount Applied Change Amount: Received 

### Of OWOR GOGOU K 

### 6475 HILLCROFT AVE, SUITE 

### B HOUSTON, TX 77081 

## 50 NO. I-t658 Co urt. 310

2 40 2 610 5 $ 3 10 00 $ 3 10 00 $ 310 00 $ 310 00

$000

THREE HUNDRED TEN AND 00/100 .. • .... ••••••• .. ••••• .. • .. 

### · Do ll a rs Payment Date · 4/10/201 5 Fil e D ate

Assessed By : LOPEZ, CRYSTAL Validated 4/10/2015 By .LOPEZ, CRYSTAL 

### CUSTOlVIER COPY
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--DVD Copy Control Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 14, 2018, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), DVD Copy Control 
Association (``DVD CCA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Skypine Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 
Shenzhen City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to 
this venture.
    Also, Videon Central Inc., State College, PA; Foryou General 
Electronics, Huizhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Taiwan Sanshin 
Electronics Co., Tokyo, JAPAN; Teltron Baires S.A., Buenos Aires, 
ARGENTINA; D&M Holdings, Kawasaki, JAPAN; Seiko Epson Corporation, 
Suwa, JAPAN; and FMS Co., Ltd., Gwangjeok-myeon, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 
have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 16, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 7, 2018 (83 FR 26498).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-19070 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
<PAGE>



                                                         EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                         ------------

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

       We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No's. 333-48364, 333-38420, 333-31696, 333-93117,
333-92327, 333-11294, 333-88421, 333-39553 and 333-106742) of our report
dated February 20, 2004 (with respect to Note 17, March 1, 2004, with
respect to the reverse stock split, April 5, 2004) on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of the years in
the two-year period ended December 31, 2003, and related financial statement
schedules included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended.

Eisner LLP

New York, New York
May 20, 2004
EADR Top Return Reason Examples

• Missing Travelers signature in DD 1351-2 Block 20 – DD1351-2 must be signed and dated by the 

claimant.

 

• Travel outside of authorized dates

o Travel began before issue date of order and no VOCO statement included in orders –

travel began on 7/21/22 which is the proceed date in the orders but orders were not 

issued until 12/7/22 requiring that the order contain a VOCO statement citing date 

traveler was verbally ordered to begin travel. An amended travel order citing the VOCO 

date is required to allow for reimbursement. 
o Travel began more than 7 days before/after proceed date authorized in orders –

began travel on 3/17 orders state proceed date of 3/24. Earliest travel may begin is 

3/18. Amended order required to correct the authorized proceed date unless traveler 

entered incorrect departure date and would therefore need to submit corrected DD 

1351-2 adjusting departure date to 3/18.

• DD 1351-2 incomplete (more than 4 blocks) – generally missing required dates or mode of 

travel/reason for stop codes – 1st example is missing all departure dates. 2nd example is missing all of 

the traveler’s personal information in boxes 2-6.
• Traveler signed but did not date DD 1351-2 block 20- All signatures dates must be on or after 

last date of accrual claimed or MC date. Claimant must sign before reviewer who must sign 

before AO (if AO approval is required)
• TDY Location Not Authorized- All locations claimed with a reason for stop code of TD must be 

authorized in the Travel order or an amendment. Example is claiming TDY in Illesheim, Germany 

which is not an authorized location. Orders authorize TDY at Mihail Kogalniceanu, Romania and any 

locations in the countries of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and 

Bulgaria. An amendment is needed authorizing Germany as a TDY location to allow for 

reimbursement.