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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000879437
<NAME> INFOUSA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,199
<SECURITIES>                                    10,279
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,586
<PP&E>                                          56,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,023
<BONDS>                                        117,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,128
<SALES>                                        117,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,022
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,058
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,058
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
NATION-BAILEY v. BAILEY—CONCURRENCE

PALMER, J., concurring. I agree with the majority

that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the

trial court improperly had construed § 3 (B) of the parties’ separation agreement as vesting discretion in the

trial court to modify rather than to terminate the alimony payments of the defendant, Adrian Peter Bailey,

following that court’s finding that the plaintiff, Rebecca

Nation-Bailey, had cohabited within the meaning of

General Statutes § 46b-86 (b). In contrast to the majority, however, I am not persuaded that the separation

agreement is ‘‘plain and unambiguous’’ on that point

because, in my view, a plausible argument can be made

that the agreement does give the trial court such discretion. See Nation-Bailey v. Bailey, 144 Conn. App. 319,

330–37, 74 A.3d 433 (2013) (Borden, J., dissenting) (discussing reasons why parties’ separation agreement

should be read to incorporate ‘‘the full panoply of remedies provided by § 46b-86 [b], including the power to

modify . . . and suspend . . . the payment of periodic alimony’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). Nevertheless, I do believe that the better reading of the

parties’ agreement is that it limits the trial court’s

authority to terminating alimony upon a finding of

cohabitation. I therefore concur in the result.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83564-83565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26271]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3602-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Amendment No. 2 to 
Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-3602-EM), dated 
October 8, 2023, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 30, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency

[[Page 83565]]

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this emergency is closed effective October 16, 2023.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-26271 Filed 11-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1

                               AMENDMENT TO
                               ------------
                 NON-COMPETITION AND SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
                 ---------------------------------------

         THIS AMENDMENT is made this 31st day of May, 1995, by and between
CHATTEM, INC., a Tennessee corporation (the "Company") and John Pemberton
Guerry, an executive of the Company (the "Executive"), under the following
circumstances:

         The Company and the Executive have entered into a Non-Competition
and Severance Agreement dated May 16, 1990 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to
which, among other things, the Executive agreed in certain circumstances not
to compete with the Company and the Company agreed to pay the Executive a
severance benefit upon the discharge or constructive discharge of the
Executive following a Change in Control. The Company and the Executive now
desire to amend the Agreement to provide that during the three (3) year
period following the time when the Executive is entitled to receive the
severance benefit, the Company will continue to provide to the Executive
health, medical and life insurance benefits.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual
covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the parties agree:

         1.  The Agreement shall be amended by adding a new section, which
shall provide as follows:

<PAGE>

             CONTINUATION OF BENEFITS.  The Company shall continue to provide
             to the Executive at its cost and expense health, medical and
             life insurance benefits at substantially the same level of
             benefits as the Executive has at the time he becomes entitled to
             the Severance Benefit in accordance with Section 4 hereof for a
             period of three (3) years following the date the Executive
             becomes entitled to such Severance Benefit.

         2.  Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment to the
Agreement shall not supersede or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of
the Agreement.


                                               _______________________________
                                               JOHN PEMBERTON GUERRY

                                               CHATTEM, INC.


                                               By: ___________________________
                                                   ROBERT E. BOSWORTH
                                                   Executive Vice President


ATTEST:


By: ___________________________
    Secretary

            (SEAL)


                                     - 2 -
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply11796Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Brian Carroll (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 22, 2022 - 10:29amWhat an amazing story and accomplishment!!!!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-1-2012

In Re: Michael Calabrese, Jr.

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 11-3793

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Michael Calabrese, Jr. " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 505.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/505
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3793

___________

IN Re: MICHAEL CALABRESE, JR.,

Appellant

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 10-cv-06583)

___________

Argued April 11, 2012

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge,

and JONES, II,* District Judge.

____________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

____________

It appears that the Isabel C. Balboa the Trustee was incorrectly identified as Attorney for 

Trustee in the caption header of this Court’s opinion filed July 20, 2012. The opinion is 

hereby amended to correct this designation as follows:

Office of United States Trustee

535 Route 38 East

Suite 580

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Trustee

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

 *

The Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II, District Judge for the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2

Date: August 1, 2012

tmk/cc: Nicholas S. Herron, Esq.

Marlene G. Brown, Esq.

Ramanjit K. Chawla, Esq.
Order entered April 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00343-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-10316-Z

ORDER

Because this is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case, we GRANT court 

reporter Glenda E. Finkley’s April 20, 2015 extension request to the extent we ORDER the 

reporter’s record be filed no later than May 1, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). If necessary, 

the trial court must arrange for a substitute reporter. See id. 28.4(b)(1).

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable David 

Lopez, Presiding Judge of the 256th Judicial District Court; Ms. Finkley; and the parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
June 24, 2005

25904

#### State v. Mainaaupo

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Simon de Montfort, Relief Portrait
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Gaetano Cecere

Materials
    Marble

Year
    1950

Location
      
House Chamber

Simon de Montfort (1200-1265) English statesman. Advocated representative government; established an early form of representative government in England.

The 23 marble relief portraits over the gallery doors of the House Chamber in the U.S. Capitol depict historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law. They were installed when the chamber was remodeled in 1949-1950. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
**EXHIBIT 32.a**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit FundII L.P. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the Fund’s general partner,Boston Capital Associates II, L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:

 
| (1)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15  or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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  Fund. |

 

 
| Date:              |   |                               |
|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
| July 14, 2008 |   | /s/ John P. Manning |
|               |   |                               |
|               |   | John P. Manning          |
|               |   | Principal Executive Officer        |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### State v. Keawemauhili

24601

03/18/2003

Vacated and remanded for new trial
151 P.3d 811

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

February 8, 2007

27616

#### State v. Atchison

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply617Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Laura Anthony ... (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 13, 2019 - 9:52amWow - amazing restoration work - by the AOC - so glad these historical windows and doors can be used for at least another 100 years.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. John G. LANNING, District Attorney, Washington County, State of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. John Marvin REINECKE, Appellee.

No. O-75-523.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 18, 1975.

John G. Lanning, Dist. Atty., David W. Lee, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.

Allan H. Stocker, Bartlesville, for appel-lee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

John Marvin Reinecke, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Washington County, Case No. CRM-75-145, with the offense of Driving While Impaired. Counsel for defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and a hearing was held thereon, at the conclusion of which, the District Court sustained said motion. Thereafter, the District Attorney filed a motion to dismiss for the reason there was insufficient evidence to further prosecute. The trial court, under the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 815, entered the following Order:

> “Now, on this 12th day of May, 1975, this matter coming on for hearing on the motion of John G. Lanning, District Attorney in and for the Eleventh Judicial District, State of Oklahoma, evidence being presented and all premises considered;

> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by this Court that said case be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

> /s/ James H. Laughlin Judge”

The State has attempted to appeal on a reserved question of law, and on the 17th day of November, 1975, the Appellant filed an application for leave to file additional authority and this Court entered an Order *555granting until January 5, 1976 to file additional authority. In light of the decisions delivered this date, we are of the opinion that the Order heretofore issued extending the time to file additional authority until January 5, 1976, should be, and the same is hereby, vacated and set aside.

In the case of *State v. Robinson*(No. 0-75-415), Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 545, delivered this date, we held that in order to appeal from an Order sustaining a motion to suppress, the State must proceed to trial and if the defendant be acquitted, the State may then appeal on a reserved question of law. Such was not done in the instant case and the dismissal entered under the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 815, does not preclude the refiling of an information under the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 817.

For the reasons set forth in *State v. Robinson*supra, this attempted appeal is *dismissed*and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate *forthwith.*

BRETT, P. J., and BLISS, J., concur.