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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          90,344                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  509,130                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,498                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    954,010                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,558,526                       0
<PP&E>                                         127,730                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,775                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,726,272                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,093,032                       0
<BONDS>                                        539,464                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           582                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,773                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,726,272                       0
<SALES>                                      9,503,037               8,298,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,503,037               8,298,635
<CGS>                                        9,041,140               7,894,499
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,041,140               7,894,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               322,966                 278,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,990                   6,705
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,179                  43,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,752                  82,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,722                  32,063
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,030                  50,123
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   1,982
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,030                  48,141
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92                     .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91                     .96


</TABLE>
#### SANDRA DORFMAN *v.*FIRST CHOICE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

(AC 19165)

Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Argued March 20

officially released July 25, 2000

*Robert L. Trowbridge,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Christopher G. Winans,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in this construction contract dispute appeals from the judgment granting the defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Sandra *82Dorfman, claims that the trial court improperly confirmed the award because (1) the arbitrator violated the very contractual provision from which he derived his authority, (2) the arbitrator acted outside the scope of his authority by failing to follow a mandatory provision of the contract regarding termination of the construction contract and (3) the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case arose out of a dispute between the plaintiff owner and the defendant construction company wherein each alleged breaches of a construction contract. The contract, which contained an arbitration clause, provided for the defendant to perform extensive work at the home of the plaintiff in Washington, Connecticut.

It is the appellant’s burden to provide a record that is adequate for review on appeal. *Kirei*v. *Hadley,*47 Conn. App. 451, 458, 705 A.2d 205 (1998). The court did not file a memorandum of decision or a signed transcript of an oral decision. The plaintiff filed a motion for articulation, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff did not thereafter file a motion for review of the denial of her motion for articulation. Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: “Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation . . . may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the [appellate] court . . . .” The record here contains the arbitrator’s award and the court’s order that simply confirms the award. Nowhere in this record can we find the basis for the actions of the arbitrator1 or the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 Some record of the actions of the arbitrator would be required for us to consider the plaintiffs claim that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

The Honorable Harry E. Mitchell 

U.S. House of Representatives 

14 1 0 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 205 15 

OFFICE OF THE 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

Re: EPA Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598 (74 Fed. Reg. 44,313; Aug. 28,2009) 

Dear Congressman Mitchell: 

Thank you for your letter concerning U.S. EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Assessment of Anticipated Visibility Improvements at Surrounding Class I Areas 

and Cost Effectiveness of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Four Comers Power 

Plant (FCPP) and Navajo Generating Station (NGS), published on August 28,2009, at 74 Fed. 

Reg. 443 13. 

We share your concerns over improving air quality, maintaining affordable access to 

electricity and water, and minimizing negative impacts on tribal communities. We place a high 

priority on ensuring that all stakeholder concerns are given careful consideration as part of our 

rulemaking process. 

EPA is responsible for meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and reducing 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the power plants within the Navajo Nation that are affecting 

multiple national parks and wilderness areas, including the Grand Canyon in Arizona. In making 

our future BART determination, we must consider five factors: the costs of compliance (i.e. cost 

effectiveness), energy and non-air quality impacts of compliance, existing pollution control 

equipment, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of visibility improvement. 

The ANPR seeks public input on the two most potentially variable factors - cost 

effectiveness and visibility improvements. It presents a comparison of the technical analyses for 

the cost effectiveness and visibility improvement submitted by Arizona Public Service (APS) 

and the Salt River Project (SRP) for their respective power plants on the Navajo Nation, and 

EPA's own analysis. While EPA agreed with much of the information provided by the utilities, 

there were some areas of disagreement. In the ANPR, EPA presents its own technical analysis, 

explains the areas of disagreement, and requests comment on all the technical analyses provided 

for the two factors. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
After we receive and review all the comments on the ANPR, EPA Region 9 will prepare 

a proposed rulemaking that will address all five factors and present and explain our BART 

determination. We will have a lengthy public comment period and hold public hearings given 

the interest in and importance of the proposal. Once we have completed the proposal process, 

we will respond to all comments received when making a final BART determination. 

Again, thank you for sharing your comments and concerns. They will be taken into 

consideration as we move forward to make a BART determination. If I can be of further 

assistance, please call me at (41 5) 947-8702 or have your staff call my Congressional Liaison, 

Brent Maier, at (41 5) 947-4256. 

Sincerely, .r 

Acting ~&ional Administrator
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
Suleiman, Relief Portrait
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Joseph Kiselewski

Materials
    Marble

Year
    1950

Location
      
House Chamber

Suleiman (1494-1566) Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Reformed and improved civil and military codes; united a group of unstable territories into an empire.

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 31.2

Certification

I, Bradley L. Smith, Senior Vice President and Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer of Ameriana Bancorp, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ameriana Bancorp;

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

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 report;

4. The registrant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(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 27, 2006



/s/ Bradley L. SmithBradley L. SmithSenior Vice President and Principal Financialand Accounting Officer
# C_2019230EN.01003401.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR)

(Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Bad faith)

(2019/C 230/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner, E. Preston, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, QC)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 and of 8 November 2017 (Cases R 2370/2016-2 and R 2371/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Annco and Holzer y Cia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ernest Admoren

- Nweke v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 01001

- CR

Trial court case number: 1648314A

Trial court: 179th District Court of Harris Co unty

Appellant ’s motion to “ modify judgments ” is denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: R i chard Highto wer

Acting for the C o urt

Panel consists of Justices Keyes

, Hightower

, and Countiss

.

Date: December 31, 2020
22346

#### State v. Kwan

Affirmed
Exhibit 10.32
Execution Copy
 FORM
OF AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
 
    Definitions
 Acquiring Person
 Affiliate and Associate
 Cause
   - 1 -




---



##### 



Execution Copy
    Change in Control
       Change in Control Payments
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Execution Copy
  Code
 Continuing Director
 Good Reason
  EXAMPLE
  Person
 Severance Payment
 Severance Payment
  - 3 -




---



##### 



Execution Copy
     Change in Control Payment
 Mode of Payment; Acceptance
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Execution Copy
 Death of Employee
 Miscellaneous
 Dispute Resolution
 Confidential Information
 Notice
 Employee:The Company:Zix Corporation2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 2200, LB 36Dallas, Texas 75204-2960Attn: CEO
 Successors; Binding Agreement
 Entire Agreement; Modifications
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Execution Copy
  Validity
 Enforcement Fees
 Governing Law
 409A Compliance
  ZIX CORPORATIONBy:Richard D. Spurr, Chairman & CEO EMPLOYEE
 - 6 -
The following were the registrant's subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997,
other than subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary at such date:


                                       Jurisdiction
                                            of
Name of Subsidiary                     Incorporation


Chris-Craft Television, Inc.           Delaware
     BHC Network Partner, Inc.         Delaware
     BHC Network Partner II, Inc.      Delaware
     BHC Network Partner III, Inc.     Delaware
     KCOP Television, Inc.             California
     Oregon Television, Inc.           Oregon
Pinelands, Inc.                        Delaware
United Television, Inc.                Delaware
     UTV of San Francisco, Inc.        California
     UTV of San Antonio, Inc.          Texas
     UTV of Baltimore, Inc.            Delaware
     United Television Sales, Inc.     Delaware
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 741 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 741

Recognizing the importance of nonprofit organizations to the economy of 
 the United States and expressing support for designation of September 
         as ``Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Recognition Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2016

Mr. Hastings (for himself, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
  Ellison, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Honda, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. 
     Bordallo, Ms. McCollum, and Ms. Meng) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the importance of nonprofit organizations to the economy of 
 the United States and expressing support for designation of September 
         as ``Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Recognition Month''.

Whereas an estimated 1,400,000 nonprofit organizations operate in the United 
        States;
Whereas the nonprofit sector continues to expand in size and scope;
Whereas nonprofits contribute nearly $1,000,000,000,000 to the United States 
        economy annually;
Whereas nonprofits serve a vital role in facilitating charitable giving and 
        social action;
Whereas the combined donations and volunteer hours of individuals to nonprofit 
        organizations are valued at hundreds of billions of dollars; and
Whereas September would be an appropriate month to designate as ``Nonprofit 
        Organization (NPO) Recognition Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the importance of nonprofits to the 
        communities they serve, the issues they support, and the 
        economy of the United States; and
            (2) supports the designation of ``Nonprofit Organization 
        (NPO) Recognition Month''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
General Nutrition Companies, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet
of  General Nutrition Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
April  26,  1997 and the related consolidated statements  of
operations  and cash flows for the twelve weeks ended  April
26, 1997 and April 27, 1996.  These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management.

We   conducted  our  review  in  accordance  with  standards
established  by  the American Institute of Certified  Public
Accountants.   A  review  of interim  financial  information
consists  principally of applying analytical  procedures  to
financial   data   and  of  making  inquiries   of   persons
responsible  for financial and accounting  matters.   It  is
substantially  less  in  scope than an  audit  conducted  in
accordance  with generally accepted auditing standards,  the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding
the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,  we
do not express such an opinion.

Based  on  our  review,  we are not aware  of  any  material
modifications  that  should  be made  to  such  consolidated
financial  statements  for them to  be  in  conformity  with
generally accepted accounting principles.

We  have  previously audited, in accordance  with  generally
accepted auditing standards, the consolidated balance  sheet
of  General Nutrition Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
February 1, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations,  stockholders' equity, and cash  flows  for  the
year  then  ended (not presented herein); and in our  report
dated March 31, 1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on
those  consolidated financial statements.  In  our  opinion,
the  information set forth in the accompanying  consolidated
balance  sheet as of February 1, 1997 is fairly  stated,  in
all  material  respects,  in relation  to  the  consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived.



Deloitte & Touche LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
May 13, 1997
#### State v. Kanakanui

15982

6/24/93

Denied