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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000941713
<NAME> HIGHWOODS FORSYTH LLP
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      29,916,000              29,916,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,404,000              13,404,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,059,000              42,059,000
<PP&E>                                   1,354,746,000           1,354,746,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              33,988,000              33,988,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,380,910,000           1,380,910,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,694,000              28,694,000
<BONDS>                                    597,734,000             597,734,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 739,816,000             739,816,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,366,244,000           1,366,244,000
<SALES>                                     29,186,000              79,476,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,881,000              84,078,000
<CGS>                                        7,898,000              21,093,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,622,000              33,649,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,653,000               3,787,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,896,000              13,970,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,710,000              32,672,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,710,000              32,672,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,432,000               2,432,000
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,278,000              30,240,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32                    1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32                    1.10
        

</TABLE>
From: Corkran, Jerry L [mailto:Jerry.Corkran@CooperIndustries.com] 

Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:07 PM 

To: Richard Parker 

Cc: Caitlin Johnson; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; 

john.caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; 

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; 

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; Nadel, Steve; 

wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; 

rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; 

cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Rosenstock, Steven; Michael 

Rivest; Jerry Hodge; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Meyers, Aaron; 

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; 

bsmith@federalpacific.com; pkumar@publicpower.org; Trujillo, Antonio; Phil Hopkinson; 

ahofmann@publicpower.org; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; 

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; kwinder@mleainc.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneiderelectric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com 

Subject: Comparison of the total losses for M3 and Amorphous core 25 kVA Transformers 

Mr. Parker,

                                The attached memo is being sent to explain to you and the DOE working group why an

evaluation of the losses at 50% load of the efficiencies does not encompass the entire picture.  The

memo explains one of the reasons why we believe that amorphous core transformers are the wrong

choice for the national energy efficiency standards.

Jerry Corkran
#### WEST v. STATE.

No. 21449.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 26, 1941.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1941.

Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. The penalty assessed is a fine-of $50 and confinement in the county jail-for a term of five days.

The indictment appears to be im due form. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the-offense charged and waived a jury upon, the trial of the case.

No error having been presented, the-judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commis-sion of Appeals has been examined by the-Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals- and approved by the Court.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant states in his motion for-rehearing that the indictment does note *111■charge any offense known to the laws of Texas; that it is vague, uncertain and not sufficiently specific to appraise the appellant of the evidence to be introduced against him.

When arraigned on the indictment with his attorney present he pleaded guilty to the charge and thereafter brought this appeal. There is no attack made on the indictment in the court below and we do not think that it is subject to the objection stated in the motion for rehearing.

The motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20462

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL ROJAS-LUVIANO, also known as Manuel Luviano Rojas, also known

as Manuel Rojas Luviano, also known as Manuel Luviano-Rojas, also known as

Manuel Rojas, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-79-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Manuel Rojas-Luviano has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Rojas-Luviano has not filed a response and has been removed from the United

States. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20462 Document: 00512419763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
No. 12-20462

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents

no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d

381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2007).

2

 Case: 12-20462 Document: 00512419763 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1






ARRAY BIOPHARMA INC.
 
DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE BONUS PROGRAM
 
Array BioPharma Inc. (the "Company") has established an annual performance bonus program for employees, including the Company's executive officers. Through this program, employees can receive an annual bonus payable in cash, stock or stock option equivalents based on achievement of key Company and individual goals.  There is no guarantee that bonuses will be awarded in any given year. The bonus program is intended to strengthen the connection between individual compensation and Company success; reinforce the Company's pay-for-performance philosophy by awarding higher bonuses to higher performing employees; and help ensure that the Company's cash compensation is competitive.
 
The Compensation Committee recommends for approval by the independent directors of the Board the minimum, target and stretch corporate performance goals, and the relative weighting of these goals, for the upcoming fiscal year. The goals generally are based on the following objective performance criteria: financial goals relating to revenue, year-end cash, cash equivalents and accounts receivable balance, and partnership objectives, discovery research goals and clinical development goals. Each participant in the bonus program may be eligible to receive a target bonus amount calculated by multiplying the participant's base salary by a percentage value later assigned to the participant or his or her position with the Company by the Compensation Committee.
 
Following the end of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee determines in its discretion the extent to which the company-wide and individual performance goals were attained. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee will award bonuses equal to a varying percentage of an employee's target bonus amount. The Compensation Committee may award a bonus in an amount less than or greater than the amount earned by a participant under the bonus program.
 
Individual bonuses can vary significantly based on performance. Any bonuses for a particular year are paid as a lump sum in cash, stock or stock option equivalents (or any combination thereof), less applicable payroll and other withholdings, in the quarter following that year. The plan can be amended in whole or in part by the Compensation Committee at any time until paid.
 
*****
Exhibit 10.28
 COINSTAR, INC.
1997 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
(As Amended by the Board of Directors on February 11, 2009)
 1. Purposes
    2. Definitions
 Affiliate
 Award
 Board
 Code
 Company
 Consultant
 Continuous Status as an Employee, Director or Consultant
 Director
 Employee




---



##### 



Exchange Act
 Fair Market Value
 The Wall Street Journal
  Incentive Stock Option
 Nonstatutory Stock Option
 Officer
 Option
 Option Agreement
 Participant
 Plan
 Plan Administrator
 Rule 16b-3
 Section 409A
 Stock Award
 Stock Award Agreement
 3. Administration




---



##### 



4. Shares Subject to the Plan




---



##### 



5. Eligibility
    6. Option Provisions
  Term
 Price
 Consideration




---



##### 



Transferability
 Vesting
 Termination of Employment or Relationship as an Employee Director or Consultant
  Disability of Participant




---



##### 



Death of Participant
 Repricing of Options
 7. Stock Awards
   Issuance of Shares




---



##### 



Waiver of Restrictions
 Transferability
 8. Covenants of the Company
   9. Use of Proceeds from Stock
  10. Miscellaneous




---



##### 



11. Adjustments Upon Changes in Stock




---



##### 



12. Amendment of the Plan and Awards
      13. Termination or Suspension of the Plan
   14. Effective Date of Plan




---



#####
Organized Village of Kake 

P.O. Box316 

Kake, Alaska 99830-0316 

Telephone 907-785-6471 

Fax 907-785-4902 I email KeexKwaan@KakeFirstNation.org 

(Federally Recognized Tribal Government serving the Kake, Alaska area) 

Michael Martin 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

June I, 2012 

RE: Essential Air Service Provider for Kake Alaska 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

At the May 29, 2012 meeting of the Organized Village of Kake (OVK) IRA Council, support was 

formally given to the proposal for Air Excursions LLC under the Essential Air Service (EAS) contract 

serving our community of Kake Alaska. Representatives of OVK were able to gather information 

from both carriers proposing to serve Kake, and after weighing multiple factors important to our 

community, the council feels that Air Excursions best meets the needs of our community. 

Given our rural location without road access, reliable air service is truly essential to our day-to-day life 

and the title of the EAS program is aptly named and vitally needed. We trust that your office will 

work with the selected airline offering services under EAS, so that they may do so in a manner that not 

only fulfills Kake's needs, but also allows them to operate in a fiscally viable manners- for that to 

occur, we thank the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Essential Air 

Service Subsidy Program that is so critical in rural communities such as Kake, Alaska. 

In closing, we wish to thank your office for its willingness to work with us and to seek community 

comment on the Essential Air Service contract award. If any additional information or comments may 

be needed please advise; and as we move into the future, please keep our tribal government office in 

the decision process for matters related to this important service. 

Sincerely, 

Gary E. Williams 

Executive Director
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Base Roll Dated May 2, 1996, Submitted by the Pokagon Band of 
Potawatomi Indians

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 9(b)(2) of Pub. L. 103-323 (108 Stat. 
2153), as amended, notice is given for receipt of the May 2, 1996, Base 
Roll of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, containing 2,325 names 
of tribal members.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Bolton, Field Representative, 
Michigan Field Office, 2901.5 I-75 Business Spur, Sault Ste. Marie, 
Michigan 49783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in the exercise of 
the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the 
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8. The Base Roll was 
received at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Michigan Field Office on May 
2, 1996. After review, corrections to the roll were made: eight names 
were added, three names were removed due to relinquishments, two names 
removed because of dual enrollment, 41 names that were listed twice 
were removed, 52 names were removed because of no ancestors on the 
historical rolls/filed after date of death/insufficient documentation. 
The corrected Base Roll containing the names of 2,325 tribal members 
was approved by Tribal Council Resolution #00-04-05-03 and submitted to 
the Michigan Field Office on May 11, 2000.

    Dated: November 2, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-28982 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 

9, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00993-CV

IN RE JOSEPH R. WILLIE, II, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401,492

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On October 29, 2012, relator Joseph R. Willie, II filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In 

the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Loyd Wright, presiding judge 

of the Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County, to vacate his order dated March 2, 2011, 

holding relator in contempt and imposing sanctions. Relator also filed an emergency 

motion to stay a contempt hearing scheduled for November 1, 2012, in the court below. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. On October 31, 2012, this court denied emergency relief, and 

we denied relator’s motion to reconsider our ruling on November 1, 2012. 
2

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no 

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 

(Tex. 2004). 

Relator has not established his entitlement to extraordinary relief from a writ of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Brown and Busby.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                   ----------





               CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Integrated Data Corp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David C. Bryan, President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and principal 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 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.


Date:  February 18, 2005       By:  /s/ David C. Bryan
                                    ------------------
                                    David C. Bryan
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal executive officer and
                                     principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Integrated Data Corp. and
will be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2()220 

FOIA No.: 2012-08-219 

OASIS No.: NK-636086 JUN 2 1 2013 

Mr. Jim McElhatton 

Washington Times 

319 N. Alfred Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Re: North Korean Applications 

Dear Mr. McElhatton: 

This is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, request 

dated August 24, 2012 to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) .. You requested a copy of 

the first 10 pages of each application for license to do business with North Korea. Treasury 

referred this matter to its Office of Foreign assets Control (OF AC) for processing. 

Please be aware that OF AC is experiencing a substantial backlog of FOIA requests that has 

adversely affected its response time. 

OFAC's search for documents responsive to your request produced a total of74 pages. We have 

determined that 67 pages are releasable in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA 

exemptions (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C); seven pages are releasable in their entirety. 

Please note that OF AC has received a number of similar requests, all pertaining to businessrelated transactions in North Korea. We are releasing the same package of responsi ve 

documents to each requester in an effort to respond more efficiently to all. For this reason, you 

may find that you are receiving a broader range of records than you originally anticipated. 

You may appeal our final decision, in writing, within 35 days after the date of this letter to the 

Free90m oflnformation Act Appeal, Disclosure Services (DO), Department of the Treasury, 

Washington, DC 20220. The deciding official for OF AC appeals is the Director, Office of 

Foreign Assets Control. Please include with your letter of appeal a copy of this response letter. 

Please reference FOIA case number 2012-08-219 in all future correspondence. 

Copies of the FOIA and Treasury regulations are available at www.treasury.gov/foia. 

Provisions of the FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost of complying with your request. In 

this instance, no fees have been assessed. 
Mr. Jim McElhatton 


Page 2 


The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) also mediates disputes between FOIA 


requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If you are requesting. 


access to your own records (which is considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that 


OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under the Privacy Act of 1974. 


If you wish to contact OGIS, you may email them at ogis@nara.gov or call 877-684-6448. 


Enclosed are information sheets pertaining to the FOIA exemptions and your right to an 


administrative appeal. 


Your request has been assigned FOrA No. 2012-08-219. Please reference this number in any 


future correspondence. You may contact our FOIARequester Service Center at (202) 622-2500, 


option 3. 


Sincerely, 

~~ Marshall H. Fields, Jr. 

Assistant Director, Information Disclosure 

Office ofResource Management . 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Enclosures: 

1. Responsive Records (74) pages 

2. FOIA Exemptions Sheet 

3. Administrative Appeal Rights
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

RESIGNATION OF STEPHANIE 

MARIE SMITH, BAR NO. 1194. 

No. 85689 

MED _ 

DEC 08 2022 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney 

Stephanie Marie Smith for Smith's resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 93(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively 

practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain 

conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state bar staff 

confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security 

fund matters are pending against Smith; and that Smith is current on all 

membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to the 

practice of law in this state. See SCR 93(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 93(5)(a)(2). Smith acknowledges that this resignation 

is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing jurisdiction with 

respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior to resignation. 

See SCR 93(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Smith has submitted an affidavit of 

compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 93(5)(e). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

7-1- zP.Cb2, 
The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 93(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Stephanie Marie Smith's resignation. 

SCR 93(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Stephanie Marie Smith 

Executive Director 

Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVAOA 

(0) 1947A 

2