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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AIRNET
SYSTEMS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                       123
<INVENTORY>                                      6,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,350
<PP&E>                                         119,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,049
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,477
<SALES>                                            288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,571
<CGS>                                              175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,854
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
AMENDMENT TO
                           CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
                       PREFERENCES RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS
                                       OF
                        CLASS B PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES A
                                       OF
                               SYNERGY BRANDS INC.
            AS PROVIDED IN THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

     SYNERGY  BRANDS INC., a  corporation  incorporated,  organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"). does hereby certify
that  pursuant  to the  authority  conferred  on the Board of  Directors  of the
Corporation by the Certificate of Incorporation,  as amended, of the Corporation
and in accordance  with Sections 141 and 151 of the General  Corporation  Law of
the State of Delaware,  the Board of Directors  of the  Corporation  adopted the
following  resolution  increasing  the available  securities  and confirming the
preferences,  rights and limitations of this Corporation's authorized and issued
Series A Class B preferred stock which authority was conferred upon the Board of
Directors with shareholder approval upon initial establishment of such preferred
stock  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  242  of  the  General
Corporation  Law of the State of Delaware (the "GCL") by  affirmative  vote of a
majority of the votes represented by outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon,
given in accordance  with the  provisions of Section 228 of the GCL with respect
to which action  written notice has been given as provided in Section 228 of the
GCL:

     RESOLVED, that pursuant to authority conferred on the Board of Directors of
this Corporation, it is hereby confirmed that the number of shares authorized to
be issued of the  previously  designated  Series A Class B  Preferred  Stock par
value $.001 per share of this  Corporation  are increased to 500,000  shares and
that dividends  which the holders are entitled to receive  regarding any and all
of such shares outstanding is hereby further confirmed to be based upon and paid
form the capital  surplus of this  Corporation,  both of which matters have been
previously  authorized by the Board of Directors of this Corporation but changes
in the relevant incorporation  documents have not been reflected in the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation filed for this Corporation on November 10, 2003 and
the record is to be clarified by this authorized  amendment and actions taken by
this Corporation previous hereto relying upon such amended provisions are hereby
ratified.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  SYNERGY BRANDS INC., has caused this Certificate to be
signed on its behalf by Mair Faibish,  its Chief Executive Officer this 25th day
of March 2004.

                                           SYNERGY BRANDS INC.

                                           By_____________________
                                           Mair Faibish, CEO

                                      EX-4
Ford-EPA Follow-up Discussion 

HD GHG

May 20, 2011
Agenda

• Potential flexibility provisions for vocational ga

engines (6.8L V10 in our case) 

• AD CO2 follow-up from April 14, 2011 Meeting• Supporting data for extending HD GHG mileag

on certification vehicles to 12,400 miles 

• Part 1065 vs. Part 86 C02 Offset

• Detail on Super-duty configurations & subconfigurations with estimated volumes.
Non-Confidential Deck

• Part 1065 vs. Part 86 C02 Offset• Potential flexibility provisions for vocational ga

engines (6.8L V10 in our case) 
6.8L HDGE: Part 1065 vs. Part 86 RPM Unnormalization & C02 O

• Speed

– Part 1065– Part 86

Due to part 1065 regulatory test procedure changes, HDGE cycle work 

lower. We have limited test data, but analytical assessment of part 1065 changes supports observations. As a result of the reduction in cycle woC02 / hp-hpr has increased relative to part 86 test results..) 

Due to limited time to conduct additional experiments, Ford requests a p

allow use of either part 86 or part 1065 speed normalization for HDGE eTechnical rationale: Max test speed and rated power speed for a HDGE well under the 15-35% range cited for HDDE driven change.

(reference: EPA420-R-008)

Warm

112

%rpm (* MaxTestSpd WarmIdleSpd) UnnormRPM

+

−

=

W

100

%rpm (* MaxPowerSpd WarmIdleSpd) UnnormRPM

+

−

=

Concern: Ford has just identified an offset between part 86 & 1065 g/bhp-hr C0

HDGE engines. 
Sample: Part 1065 vs. Part 86 HDGE Transient Cycle Test Points

-100

0

100200300400500600700

600 1100 1600 2100 2600 3100 3600 4100 

Engine Speed (rpm)

Torque (Nm) 
Reference: Test Procedures for Highway and NonRoad Engines and Omnib

Amendments: EPA420-R-008, June 2005

Continued -
Reference Continued: Test Procedures for Highway and NonRoad Engines and O

Amendments: EPA420-R-008, June 2005
Potential flexibility provisions fo

vocational gasoline engines

• Would like the discretion to certify “heavy as lig

(i.e. certify substantially complete vehicles >14GVWR to the <14k GVWR CO2 standards)

• ABT between gas & diesel averaging sets• Trading of CO2 credits between MD trucks & V

and Vocational Vehicles (reference Ford writtecomments in docket)
#### HAYS v. STATE.

No. 14697.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 6, 1932.

W. W. Wander, of Houston, for appellant.

O’Brien Stevens, Or. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, both of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant was jointly indicted with Clarence Hill. ' Upon the trial, Hill entered a plea of guilty, and appellant pleaded not guilty. Appellant alone is appealing.

The sole question is the sufficiency of the evidence. Under authority of a search warrant, officers went to appellant’s house and searched it. Appellant was at a car in front of the house at the time the officers arrived. He said it was his home, and that Hill was living there with him. The house was a story and a half residence, the stairway going up from inside the house. In the upstairs room the officers found two 10-gallon kegs of whisky, two gallons of whisky in a 5-gallon jug, five cases of empty pint flasks, one 10-gallon empty keg, one 5-gallon empty jug, a syphon hose, funnel, and one.electric ‘“hot point.” The latter article was explained to be an “ager,” an electric appliance used to age raw corn liquor. The officers said the “ager” was connected with the electric light plug by a long insulated wire. Appellant told the officers it belonged to him, and that he used it in his work as an automobile mechanic. Hill was upstairs engaged in syphoning whisky from’ the kegs into the pint bottles. He claimed the whisky, and said it did not belong to any one else. He testified to the same effect on the trial, claiming that he carried the articles upstairs at night when appellant was not at home. He claims to have carried the full 10-gallon kegs of whisky up the stairs without assistance. His explanation of how and from whom he came into possession of the whisky was unsatisfactory. 1-Ie denied ownership of the “ager,” and also denied that it was connected up as claimed by the officers. A strong odor of whisky was over the house, and could be plainly detected downstairs, and could be smelled by the officers before they entered the house. Appellant did not testify; neither did he call his wife as a witness. Under the facts, the jury was warranted in discounting Hill’s testimony in which he sought to assume sole responsibility for the unlawful enterprise, and was justified in reaching the conclusion that appellant and Hill were joint possessors of the liquor for the purpose of sale.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION     I, Patrick J. Pedonti, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;     b) Not applicable;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):    a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  August 8, 2007 /s/ Patrick J. Pedonti   Patrick J. Pedonti
EXHIBIT 10(B)(23)

                  AMENDMENT TWENTY FIVE TO MARKETING AGREEMENT

This  document is Amendment  Twenty Five to the  Marketing  Agreement,  made and
entered into  effective  June 1, 1993, and amended by Amendment One to Marketing
Agreement dated September 16, 1993;  Amendment Two to Marketing  Agreement dated
June 4, 1998;  Amendment Three to Marketing  Agreement dated September 25, 1998;
Amendment Four to Marketing Agreement dated October 19, 1998; and Amendment Five
to Marketing  Agreement  dated  December 15,  1998;  Amendment  Six to Marketing
Agreement dated March 25, 1999, Amendment Seven to Marketing Agreement dated May
10, 1999;  Amendment Eight to Marketing Agreement dated June 24, 1999; Amendment
Nine to Marketing  Agreement  dated August 5, 1999,  Amendment  Ten to Marketing
Agreement dated October 1, 1999,  Amendment Eleven to Marketing  Agreement dated
January 31, 2000,  Amendment Twelve to Marketing  Agreement dated March 1, 2000,
Amendment  Thirteen  to  Marketing  Agreement  dated April 19,  2000,  Amendment
Fourteen  to  Marketing  Agreement  dated July 31,  2000,  Amendment  Fifteen to
Marketing  Agreement  dated September 25, 2000,  Amendment  Sixteen to Marketing
Agreement dated October 31, 2000,  Amendment  Seventeen dated November 29, 2000,
Amendment  Eighteen to Marketing  Agreement  dated  January 24, 2001,  Amendment
Nineteen to  Marketing  Agreement  dated  March 14,  2001,  Amendment  Twenty to
Marketing  Agreement  dated  May 4,  2001,  Amendment  Twenty-One  to  Marketing
Agreement dated June 28, 2001, Amendment Twenty-Two to Marketing Agreement dated
September 4, 2001,  Amendment  Twenty-Three to Marketing Agreement dated October
11, 2001, and Amendment  Twenty-Four to Marketing  Agreement  dated November 30,
2001 (the  "Agreement"),  by and between  American  National  Insurance  Company
("American National"), a Texas corporation,  and Legacy Marketing Group ("LMG"),
a California corporation.

In  consideration  of mutual covenants  contained  herein,  the parties agree as
follows:

1.   Section 3.1 of the  Agreement is hereby  deleted in its  entirety,  and the
     following new Section 3.1 shall be substituted therefor:

     "3.1 Subject to termination as hereinafter  provided,  this Agreement shall
     remain in force and effect until the close of business on May 31, 2002, the
     term of this Agreement.  This Agreement may be renewed by mutual  agreement
     for successive  terms of one (1) year unless  terminated by either party by
     prior  written  notice to the other at least one hundred  eighty (180) days
     prior to termination."


Except as specifically amended hereby, all terms and provisions of the Marketing
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.

LEGACY MARKETING GROUP                      AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

By: /s/ H. Lynn Stafford                    By: /s/ Kelly M. Collier

Title: Chief Information Officer            Title: Vice President

Witness: /s/ Stephanie Molteni              Witness: /s/ Lori Herrera

Date: March 1, 2002                         Date: March 1, 2002
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1785 

To prohibit the implementation of a policy change to permit small, nonlocking knives on passenger aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of a policy change to permit 

small, non-locking knives on passenger aircraft. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF POL4 ICY CHANGE TO PERMIT SMALL, NON-LOCK5 ING KNIVES ON PASSENGER AIRCRAFT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, on and after the date of the enactment of 

8 this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may not im9 plement any change to the prohibited items list of the 

10 Transportation Security Administration that would permit 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1785 IS

1 passengers to carry small, non-locking knives through pas2 senger screening checkpoints at airports, into sterile areas 

3 at airports, or on board passenger aircraft. 

4 (b) PROHIBITED ITEMS LIST DEFINED.—In this sec5 tion, the term ‘‘prohibited items list’’ means the list of 

6 items passengers are prohibited from carrying as acces7 sible property or on their persons through passenger 

8 screening checkpoints at airports, into sterile areas at air9 ports, and on board passenger aircraft pursuant to section 

10 1540.111 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3rd Amend. to Employment Agreement between ICO & C. Sullivan


Exhibit
10.3



THIRD
AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT




This
Third Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Third Amendment”) is effective as of
May 10, 2005 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), unless otherwise stated herein.





    WHEREAS,
effective June 21, 2003, ICO, Inc., a Texas corporation, and its subsidiaries
and affiliates ("Employer"), and Christopher N. O’Sullivan ("Employee") entered
into an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”); and




    WHEREAS, the
Agreement was amended by an amendments dated July 9, 2003 (the “First
Amendment”), and August 16, 2004 (the “Second Amendment), and the parties desire
to further amend the Agreement via this Third Amendment, as set forth
herein.




   
NOW,
THEREFORE, Employer and Employee agree as follows:




1.   All
capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.




2.   Employer
and Employee hereby agree that Employee’s employment shall be terminated,
effective as of June 1, 2005. Employee acknowledges that upon termination of his
employment, all future benefits for which Employee would be eligible shall cease
and terminate, and Employee shall be entitled to the following (and no other
payments): (i) pro rata Base Salary through the date of such termination; and
(ii) any other payments that may be payable pursuant to the terms of Employer's
employee benefit plans in which Employee is a participant.




    IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Employer and Employee have duly executed this Second Amendment in
multiple originals, to be effective on the date set forth above.




    ICO,
Inc.

    


	           
      BY:	
      /s/
      W. Robert Parkey, Jr.

	
       
	
      W.
      Robert Parkey, Jr.

	
       
	
      Chief
      Executive Officer

	
                 
      Date:
	
      May
      10, 2005




 

    EMPLOYEE:   


 


	    BY:	
      /s/
      Christopher N. O'Sullivan

	
       
	
      Christopher
      N. O'Sullivan

	
                 
      Date:
	
      May
      10, 2005
#### WELLS v. STATE.

No. 15440.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1932.

S. F. Rose, of Amarillo, for appellant

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

A freight house was broken open and sixteen cases of cigarettes taken therefrom. A witness testified for the state that about 9 o’clock that night appellant came to'him inquiring about where he could get a truck, saying that he wanted to use same in hauling citrus fruit from the valley. This witness also testified that about 2 o’clock that night appellant again came to his house and told him he wanted to borrow witness’ truck to haul some cigarettes. He told witness he had about twelve cases of cigarettes. Witness lent appellant his truck. Next morning about 7 o’clock he saw appellant, who told him that he had moved the cigarettes, and that he wanted to sell them at $35 a case. Witness appears to have said that he might sell some of them for appellant. The Sunday following the burglary, this witness,- in company with two other men who seemed to have had some connection with the cigarettes, went to Lubbock and there saw appellant who, *97upon inquiry, stated that the cigarettes could toe found on Amarillo creek at a point described.

Appellant excepted to the failure of the court to instruct the jury that this witness was an accomplice; also excepted to the charge for its failure to submit to the jury the issue as to whether such witness was an accomplice. In failing to submit said issue to the jury we believe the learned trial judge fell into error. To say the least, the circumstance of appellant going to this witness at 9 o’clock inquiring about a truck for use in hauling citrus fruit, and his return to the same witness at 2 a. m. and borrowing a truck for the purpose of hauling twelve cases of cigarettes from out in the country, and that the witness actually loaned the truck for that purpose, and later suggested that he might assist in the sale of the cigarettes, and that he was several times in.company with other parties who seemed to be engaged in the cigarette transaction in a way not developed in this case, might have been deemed sufficient by the jury to justify a conclusion that said witness had furnished transportation or aid to the appellant in committing the offense.

The sufficiency of the evidence is vigorously assailed. In view of the fact that we think the case must be reversed for the error just discussed, we omit extended discussion on the point last mentioned. We might observe that there appears very little in the case to connect appellant with the cigarettes which were found by the officers. Of the two men in whose possession they were found, it might be said that one of them refused to testify on the ground that he might incriminate himself, and the other affirmed positively that he did not get those cigarettes from appellant. The state may be able to strengthen its ease upon another trial.

For the error complained of the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
<PAGE>

                    D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2002 of D&E Communications, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
William Ruhl, Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or
Section 78o(d)); and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



   /s/ G. William Ruhl
-----------------------------
Name:  G. William Ruhl
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  August 14, 2002


                                       46