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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           16,430,314
<SECURITIES>                                      5,552,358
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 22,167,759
<PP&E>                                            1,727,847
<DEPRECIATION>                                      713,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23,566,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               723,874
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             84,718
<OTHER-SE>                                       22,757,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23,566,382
<SALES>                                              29,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     29,313
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6,732,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  655,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,047,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,047,728)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,047,728)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.72)
                                               


</TABLE>
rtmott In The 

## (tfourtofAppeals For The 

## iTtrstSupreme SvtbtcvdBtstrtrtof©exas

NO. 01-87-00137-CV

VALERO TRANSMISSIONCOMPANY, APPELLANT V. MITCHELL ENERGYCORPORATION, APPELLEE On Appealfrom the 295th DistrictCourt ofHarris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 85-05219 OPINION ONREHEARING 

### In its motion for rehearing, Valero Transmission Company urges the 

### samearguments as in itsoriginal appeal, butalsocontends that anorderof the Texas Railroad Commission, rendered after the temporary injunction was entered in this 

### case, requiresthat our opinion bewithdrawnandthe injunctiondissolved. On original submission, we held that under the proper standard of review, Valero had not carried its burden to show that the injunction was illegal or 

### required Valero to take gas in violation ofTexas law. The temporary injunction

### requires Valero to take from Mitchell Energy an amountof gas equal to the prorated allowable setfor Mitchell's wells by the Texas Railroad Commission. To prevent lease loss, Valero must take an amount equal to one day's production from each well, but again only if that amount does not exceed the well's prorated allowable. Thus, the injunction's requirements are expressly tied to the legally allowed production quotas setby the Texas Railroad Commission. Valero has not proven its defense ofillegality. In a separate proceeding before the Texas Railroad Commission, Valero 

### apparently sought to have Mitchell's well allowables set at zero, and was successful. Valero now contends that this result, and the Commission's order, vitiates our interpretation of the Texas Natural Resources Code and Railroad Commission 

### regulations. Although some languagein the Railroad Commission's ordermay appear inconsistentwith our own findings, Mitchell correctly points out that that order is not 

### properly before this Court. We are limited to the record made in the trial court. We do not know what evidence the Railroad Commission considered or whether the issues before it were identical to those before the trial court in the instant case. We 

### therefore cannot say that the Railroad Commission's order is dispositive of the issues in this appeal. Moreover, the temporary injunction is not inconsistent with the Railroad Commission's order. Again, the injunction's requirements are specifically defined withreference to the allowables set by the Texas Railroad Commission. Thus, because Mitchell's allowables are now set at zero, and the injunction requires Valero to take 

### only the amount of Mitchell's allowable, Valero is not currently required by the injunction to take any gas underthe contract.

-2-*r

The motionfor rehearing is overruled.

/s/Frank G. Evans FRANK G. EVANS, Chief Justice Justices Cohen and Hoyt also sitting. Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 90. Judgment Rendered and Opinion Delivered January 14, 1988. True Copy Attest:



### 1(^CkJC£i~*l^^yyO \^^>Q-4 Kathryn Coxt^ Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,564)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,036
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,889
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knoll, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Barry L. McCabe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

 

a.               The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

May 10, 2011

 

 
| /s/ Barry L. McCabe     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| **Barry L. McCabe**     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### BAGLEY v. STATE.

No. 16580.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1934.

J. E. Atcheson, of Crowell, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property less than $5 in value, the punishment assessed being a fine of $10.

In the transcript the verdict of the jury is copied, and immediately after the verdict *178we find the following: “To which the defendant excepted and gives notice of appeal. Vance Swain, Co. Judge.”

Article 827, C. C. P., makes a notice of appeal given in open court and “entered of record” a prerequisite of appeal. There is no showing in the transcript that notice of appeal- was ever carried into the minutes of the court A docket entry alone would not be sufficient; neither would a notice of appeal simply filed among the papers in the case. Davis v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 240, 40 S.W.(2d) 153; Casey v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 32 S.W.(2d) 461; Wheeler v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 358, 42 S.W.(2d) 69.

If in fact the notice of appeal was carried into the court minutes, appellant can show it by a supplemental transcript properly verifying such entry. If the notice of appeal was omitted from the court minutes, the proper way to have it incorporated therein is pointed out in article 827, C. C. P.

As the record appears here now the appeal must be dismissed.
Strateco Resources Inc. Exhibit 10.2


Exhibit 10.2 Summary in English Language of the Contract of services entered between Strateco Resources Inc. and BBH Géo-Management Inc., as of August 1st, 2008




Strateco Resources Inc. (“Strateco”) in order to conduct exploration work on its mining properties signed a contract to retain the following services of BBH Géo-Management Inc. (“BBH”) on July 13, 2000, it has renewed the Agreement on August 1, 2002, August 1, 2005 and amended said Agreement as of April 1, 2007 before to renew it once more on August 1, 2008:

Strateco has renewed a three-year services agreement dated August 1, 2008 with BBH, a related company of which an officer and director, Mr. Guy Hébert, is also an officer and director of Strateco. The agreement provides for BBH to manage the exploration works to be conducted by Strateco. 

The purposes of this Contract of services are the following:

·

Use of BBH’s offices and equipment (for a monthly charge of CA$5,200; a monthly increase of CA$2,000 was applied following the increase in the size of office space); Management fees of 5% on all costs related to exploration and development programs and purchases related to the Matoush property; These costs and fees are to be revised by the parties in the case where Strateco would enter into production.




·

Management fees of 10% on all costs related to exploration and development programs on the other properties: Eclat, Pacific Bay-Matoush, Mistassini, Apple and other future properties, and of 5% on all purchases related to exploration projects and option agreements on the Eclat, Pacific Bay-Matoush, Mistassini, Apple and other future properties; These costs and fees are to be revised by the parties in the case where Strateco would enter into production.




·

Management, administration, accounting and legal services;




·

Consulting services, including geology;




·

Relations with investors and regulatory authorities; 




·

Identification of sources of financing.




The fees payable to BBH, approved by the Board of directors of Strateco in the absence of Mr. Guy Hébert, are equivalent to the fees that Strateco would otherwise have paid to a third, arm’s length party in the industry.

Fees for the personal of administration, geological consultants, accounting personal, legal services and other personal provided by BBH to render services to Strateco, are to be paid twice a month by Strateco at the hourly rate of salary paid by BBH multiplied by 1.85 for each day worked. BBH is to be considered at all times and for all purposes and laws applicable in Québec and Canada, the only employer for the personnel rendering services to Strateco. No management fees are charged on fees of personnel.

The Contract of services also provides fees for the use of vehicles required for exploration and location and use of photocopy equipment. BBH also bills Strateco an amount of $265 per month for use of a BBH vehicle by the president of Strateco.




This contract of services expires on July 31, 2011.
<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, 1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                       298
<INVENTORY>                                     13,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,368
<PP&E>                                         134,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,906
<SALES>                                            200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,522
<CGS>                                              255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,888
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,714
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,488)
<NET-INCOME>                                     (774)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1971 

To provide air carriers with access to information about applicants to be 

pilots from the National Driver Register, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2017 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself and Mr. PERDUE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide air carriers with access to information about 

applicants to be pilots from the National Driver Register, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pilot Records Improve5 ment Enhancement Act of 2017’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1971 IS

1 SEC. 2. ACCESS OF AIR CARRIERS TO INFORMATION ABOUT 

2 APPLICANTS TO BE PILOTS FROM NATIONAL 

3 DRIVER REGISTER. 

4 Section 30305(b)(8) of title 49, United States Code, 

5 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(8)(A) An individual who is seeking employ7 ment by an air carrier as a pilot may request the 

8 chief driver licensing official of a State to provide in9 formation about the individual under subsection (a) 

10 of this section to the prospective employer of the in11 dividual, the authorized agent of the prospective em12 ployer, or the Secretary of Transportation. 

13 ‘‘(B) An air carrier that is the prospective em14 ployer of an individual described in subparagraph 

15 (A), or an authorized agent of such an air carrier, 

16 may request and receive information about that indi17 vidual from the National Driver Register through an 

18 organization approved by the Secretary for purposes 

19 of requesting, receiving, and transmitting such infor20 mation directly to the prospective employer of such 

21 an individual or the authorized agent of the prospec22 tive employer. 

23 ‘‘(C) Information may not be obtained from the 

24 National Driver Register under this paragraph if the 

25 information was entered in the Register more than 

26 5 years before the request unless the information is 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1971 IS

1 about a revocation or suspension still in effect on the 

2 date of the request.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.1

                            EMERGENCE BONUS AGREEMENT

     This Emergence Bonus Agreement, effective as of February 17, 2005, is
entered into between Glenn Umetsu ("Executive") and Cricket Communications, Inc.
("Cricket).

Recitals

     A. On April 13, 2003, Cricket, Leap Wireless International, Inc. ("Leap"),
and substantially all of their respective subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions
for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

     B. Cricket, Leap and their respective debtor subsidiaries emerged from
bankruptcy on August 16, 2004 when the Amended and Restated Joint Plan of
Reorganization of Leap, Cricket and other debtors party thereto became
effective.

     C. Executive served as an executive officer of Leap and Cricket for all or
substantially all of the time that these two corporations were in bankruptcy.

     D. To help assure its continued operations and the retention of its
employees during its financial restructuring, Cricket instituted various
retention and bonus compensation programs in 2003 and 2004, including a program
referred to as the Key Employee Retention Program ("KERP") which provided
employees who were selected to participate in the program with bonus payments in
October 2004 and February 2005. No executive officer of Leap or Cricket
participated in the KERP.

     E. In recognition of the services that Executive rendered to Leap and
Cricket, including the services that Executive rendered to Leap and Cricket
during the pendency of these corporations' bankruptcies, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Leap authorized the payment of a cash
emergence bonus to Executive. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, Cricket has agreed to pay to Executive the
portion of such bonus that remains to be paid as set forth below.

Agreement

     1. Cricket shall pay Executive a bonus in an amount equal to $125,000 on
(or promptly after) the earliest to occur of the following events:

          (a) September 30, 2005, provided Executive is still employed by
     Cricket on such date;

          (b) the date on which Executive ceases to be employed by Cricket,
     unless such cessation of employment occurs as a result of a termination for
     Cause.

<PAGE>

As used in this agreement, the terms "Cause" shall have the meaning ascribed to
such term in the standard form of Stock Option Grant Notice and Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.2 to Leap's Current Report on From
8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2005.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement effective as of
the date first written above.

EXECUTIVE                               CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


                                        By:
-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
                                            Name: S.D. Hutcheson
                                            Title: President, CFO
EERE Information Center

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

ANOPR Analysis Tools:

Residential Dishwashers,

Dehumidifiers, and Cooking

Products and Commercial

Clothes Washers

This page presents analytical spreadsheets

providing rulemaking findings and interactive

tools for the life-cycle cost analysis, national

impact analysis, government regulatory impact

model, and regulatory impact analysis for

residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and

cooking products, and commercial clothes

washers.

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Spreadsheets

Draft Oven LCC Spreadsheet (Excel 1.3

MB)

Draft Cooktop LCC Spreadsheet (Excel

1.3 MB)

Draft Microwave Oven LCC Spreadsheet

(Excel 1.1 MB)

Draft Commercial Clothes Washer LCC

Spreadsheet (Excel 486 KB)

Draft Dehumidifier LCC Spreadsheet

(Excel 523 KB)

Draft Dishwasher Life-Cycle Cost

Spreadsheet (Excel 1.1 MB)

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheets

Draft Cooktop and Oven NES

Spreadsheet (Excel 1.3)

Draft Microwave Oven NES Spreadsheet

(Excel 561 KB)

Draft Commercial Clothes Washer NES

Spreadsheet (Excel 712 KB)

Draft Dehumidifier NES Spreadsheet

(Excel 688 KB)

Draft Dishwasher National Energy

Savings Spreadsheet (Excel 800 KB)

Contact Information

Stephen Witkowski, P.E.

Project Manager

(202) 586-7463

Printable Version

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: ANOPR Analysis Tool... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/...

1 of 2 5/6/2009 12:20 PM

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 64.3
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 05/04/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: ANOPR Analysis Tool... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/...

2 of 2 5/6/2009 12:20 PM

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 64.3