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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 26, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                         151,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  265,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,492)
<INVENTORY>                                    776,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,259,698
<PP&E>                                         442,651
<DEPRECIATION>                               (213,372)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,600,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          929,649
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           939
<OTHER-SE>                                     422,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,600,540
<SALES>                                      1,392,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,392,140
<CGS>                                        1,195,786
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,195,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               180,303
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,068
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,140
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020201EN.01002001.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T-437/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice - Damage)

(2020/C 201/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and B. Hofstötterer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Franklin Lake Resources Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Fr. Gregory Ofiesh, President, CEO and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) 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
     Company.



September 20, 2004                            /S/ Gregory Ofiesh
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Fr. Gregory Ofiesh
                                              President and CEO
                                              Acting Chief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Jesse Tyrone Baily v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 43 2

- CR

Trial court case number: A

- 15

- 0 061

- S A

Trial court: 51st District Court of Tom Green County

The Clerk of the Court has examined the clerk ’ s record and has found that it does not

comport with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it does not include a copy of the trial

court ’ s certification of appellant ’ s right of appeal that corresponds to the trial court’s February 21

, 201 9 judgment

. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2 (a)(2), (d), 34.5( a)(12).

Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to secure a

pr oper Certification of Defendant’ s Right of Appeal in complianc e with Rule 25.2(d). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). Once properly completed and executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk ’ s record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c)(2). The trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk ’ s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than 20 days from the

date of this order

. See id. This order con stitutes notice to all parties of the defective certification

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Sherry Radack

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

1 The record does contain a Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, but it is dated June 12, 2015 and only applies to appellant’s plea of June 12, 2015 , which resulted in the trial

court’s June 1 2 , 201 5 judgment placing appellant on community supervisi on. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2) (requiring trial court to enter certification each time it enters judgment or appealable order); Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 912, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The record therefore does not contain a certification that pertains to the trial court’s February 21 , 201 9 judgment a djudicating appellant’s guilt.Date: ____ March 17, 2020

___
EXHIBIT 10.40

















                                       74


<PAGE>


November 14, 1997


Certified Mail and Facsimile
---------------------------
Fuller Research Corporation
944 Morgan Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046
Attn: Terry A. Fuller, Ph.D., President


Dear Terry:


SLT hereby exercises its option to cancel the License Agreement, dated May 31,
1994, between Fuller Research Corporation and SLT. In accordance with Section
5.5, we are enclosing our check for $15,000 to cover the minimum royalties for
October, November and December 1997, and January and February 1998.

We shall look into our files and records and determine whether there are any
items of FRC's property that should be returned.

We are grateful for having had the opportunity to use the technology covered
under the Agreement. We wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.


Yours very truly,

/s/ Davis Woodward
-----------------------------------
Davis Woodward
Vice President, Legal & Tax Affairs

enclosure
cc.  Keith Stoneback
     Michael R. Stewart


                                       75
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Wildlife Services Directive 

LIVESTOCK PROTECTION COLLARS 

1. PURPOSE 

2.420 

Ma 7, 2015 

To provide guidelines on the role of WS in the use of Livestock Protection Collars (LPC's) in 

controlling livestock depredations by coyotes. 

2. REPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS 

This directive replaces WS Directive 2.420 dated 02/17/2004. 

3. AUTHORITY 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), as amended. 

4. POLICY 

WS personnel must be trained and certified in the use of LPC's prior to application. State 

Directors should consult with the appropriate state regulatory agency responsible for pesticide 

application to determine if LPC training wi ll be provided by that agency or by WS. At the state 

agency's discretion, WS may provide the necessary training. 

LPC's are registered specifically for managing coyote predation on livestock. 

The registration for use by private certified applicators will be maintained separate from the WS 

registration. WS personnel may provide technical assistance to those interested in using the nonWS LPC registration. 

5. BACKGROUND 

The LPC contains Compound 1080 and is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registered 

pesticide for use by private certified applicators and WS. The LPC's registered under EPA 
Wildlife Services Directive 2.420 

Federal Registration No. 56228-22 are for official WS use only. WS may also use LPC's 

registered by several states. 

6. DEFINITIONS 

Page 2 

The LPC is a wildlife damage management tool used by WS personnel to protect sheep and goats 

from depredating coyotes. LPC's contain two reservoirs with low concentration doses of 

compound 1080, which is fatal to coyotes when ingested during an attack. 

7. IMPLEMENTATION 

LPC's must be used in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including a state 

registration and the User Instructions and Use Restrictions contained in the Technical Bulletin for 

the Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) Livestock Protection Collar. Copies of the 

Technical Bulletin may be obtained from the WS Operational Support Staff (OSS). 

8. APPLICABILITY 

This Directive applies to all WS personnel. 

9. REFERENCES 

WS Directive 2.401 , Pesticide Use (12/08/09). 

Technical Bulletin for the Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) Livestock Protection Collar 

(Aphis WS May 2010). 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), as amended. 

Deputy Administrator
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, 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

January 18, 2013

t0116

Order 

January 18, 2013

145963

JAMES SMITH and ODIS SOLOMON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

JOHN GATEWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 145963

COA: 303939 

Oakland CC: 2010-113507-CK

ROYAL OAK TOWNSHIP,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2012 

judgment 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.

HATHAWAY, J., not participating.
18393

#### Duvauchelle v. Kakani

Affirmed
Respondent. 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL L 4 liEMAN 

# 11( 

# U .

C.J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LESLIE MARK STOVALL, D/B/A STOVALL & ASSOCIATES, Appellant, vs. LETICIA RIVERA, No. 69287 

# FILED JUN 2 9 2016
Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED.'

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Craig A. Hoppe, Settlement Judge Stovall & Associates Injury Lawyers of Nevada Eighth District Court Clerk

1 In light of this order, the May 23, 2016, order conditionally imposing sanctions is vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (()) 1947A 0 

# Ito-ao3"1
Exhibit
31.2





I, Ray
Salomon, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K of ECO2 Plastics,
Inc.;





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 annual report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
small business issuer and have:




a)
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





b)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting; and





5. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business
issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and




b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.







Date:
April 13,
2009                                    
By: /s/ Raymond
M. Salomon


Raymond
M. Salomon


Chief
Financial Officer
December 7, 2000

22862

#### Franklin v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co.

Vacated
EXHIBIT 10.1


Exhibit 10.1

Summary of Outside Director Compensation Program




Annual Retainers

Director

$40,000

Paid quarterly at beginning of

quarter

Chair of Audit Committee

+$15,000

Paid quarterly

Chair of Compensation Committee

+$10,000

Paid quarterly

Chair of Nominating and Governance 

+$7,500

Paid quarterly

Committee

Non-chair Audit Committee member

+$5,000

Paid quarterly

Non-chair Compensation Committee 

+$7,800

Paid quarterly

member

Non-chair Nominating and Governance

+$5,000

Paid quarterly

Committee member

Note:  All travel expenses paid based on voucher.

STOCK COMPENSATION:

$57,000/year; each grant subject to one year vesting; stock compensation granted in May of year.

Note:  For subsequent new Board members who join Board mid-year, cash and stock compensation is pro-rated.
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
Capitol Cornerstone Ceremony, 1793
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Allyn Cox

Materials
    Oil on Canvas

Location
      
U.S. Capitol Building
          Cox Corridors

The Capitol's first cornerstone was laid on September 18, 1793, by President Washington in a Masonic ceremony. The ceremony was preceded by a parade and followed by celebration and feasting.

About the Cox Corridors Murals

The first floor of the U.S. Capitol's House wing is elaborately decorated with wall and ceiling murals by artist Allyn Cox. The eastern north-south corridor has been termed the Hall of Capitols because it features paintings of 16 different buildings that housed the Continental and United States Congresses from 1754 to 1865. Painted in the barrel vaults of the ceilings are eight historic events that occurred during the first 65 years of the Capitol's existence. 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
#### Nihipali v. Lopez

22832

01/30/2001

Affirmed
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.5




AMENDMENT NO. 2 
TO THE 
XEROX CORPORATION
2004 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN
JUNE 30, 2017 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the “Company”) has established the Xerox Corporation 2004 Performance Incentive Plan, which is presently set forth in the June 30, 2017 Amendment and Restatement (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”), and 


WHEREAS the Company desires to amend the Plan, 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


22. Change in Control


Notwithstanding anything to the contrary to the Plan, the following shall apply to all awards granted and outstanding under the Plan:


(b) Acceleration of Nonforfeitability of SARs, Stock Awards, Cash Awards, and Dividends and
Dividend Equivalents.


All SARs, stock awards, stock options (to the extent the CIC Price exceeds the exercise price),
cash awards, dividends and dividend equivalents outstanding (i) shall become 100%
Nonforfeitable with respect to a participant upon a Termination for Good Reason or an
involuntary termination of employment (other than a termination For Cause, as defined in the
award agreement, according to a determination made before the Change in Control) that occurs
after a Change in Control, or (ii) to the extent provided in a participant’s employment
arrangement


Effective Date: This amendment is effective for grants on and after the date hereof.
Dated: May 14, 2018
May 22, 1997

20001

#### State v. Kepa

Affirmed
July 24, 2015

Mr. John Santry

Owner

CA Drone Supply

1608 India St reet #505

San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Mr. Santry :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21 , Subpart H ; § § 45.23(b), 61.113, 61.133, 91.7(a), 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,

91.15 1, 91.203(a)(1), and 91.401−91.417

, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regu lations (14 CFR).

It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your May 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Revolutionary Unmanned

Systems LLC dba California Drone Supply into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1714 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us al l of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of t he exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267

- 2999

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst

, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
# C_2020103EN.01002702.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

(Case T-177/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Plea of illegality)

(2020/C 103/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Lejeune and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
Exhibit 10.1







The Company and Mr. Anderson have an unwritten agreement that Mr. Anderson shall receive an annual salary of £80,000 for his role as Chief Financial Officer.  Either party may terminate employment by providing the other party with no less than three months' prior notice.