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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,013
<SECURITIES>                                     8,697
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                       415
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,079
<PP&E>                                       1,152,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,196,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,792
<BONDS>                                        554,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           472
<OTHER-SE>                                     523,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,196,666
<SALES>                                        314,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               340,961
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  250,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,808
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,856
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     75
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,931
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 153/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.153.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 153 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5530 May 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.153.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 153

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5530 May 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Euronest Parliamentary Assembly |
| 2012/C 153/01 | Resolution on energy security, renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy infrastructure: developments in the Eastern Partnership and in the EU countries | 1 |
| 2012/C 153/02 | Resolution on trade agreements between the EU and the Eastern European Partners, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, and EU assistance in this field | 5 |
| 2012/C 153/03 | Resolution on challenges for the future of democracy, including the question of free and independent media in Eastern Partnership and EU countries | 9 |
| 2012/C 153/04 | Resolution on strengthening civil society in the Eastern Partnership Countries, including the question of cooperation between government and civil society, and the question of the reforms aimed at empowering civil society | 16 |
| 2012/C 153/05 | Resolution on the situation of Yulia Tymoshenko | 21 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Euronest Parliamentary Assembly

2012/C 153/01

Resolution on energy security, renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy infrastructure: developments in the Eastern Partnership and in the EU countries

1

2012/C 153/02

Resolution on trade agreements between the EU and the Eastern European Partners, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, and EU assistance in this field

5

2012/C 153/03

Resolution on challenges for the future of democracy, including the question of free and independent media in Eastern Partnership and EU countries

9

2012/C 153/04

Resolution on strengthening civil society in the Eastern Partnership Countries, including the question of cooperation between government and civil society, and the question of the reforms aimed at empowering civil society

16

2012/C 153/05

Resolution on the situation of Yulia Tymoshenko

21

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Euronest Parliamentary Assembly |
| 2012/C 153/06 | Rules of Procedure adopted on 3 May 2011 in Brussels and amended on 3 April 2012 in Baku | 23 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Euronest Parliamentary Assembly

2012/C 153/06

Rules of Procedure adopted on 3 May 2011 in Brussels and amended on 3 April 2012 in Baku

23

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 
  





 
 October 25, 2017 
 Todd
J. Teske 
 Briggs & Stratton Corporation 
 12301 West
Wirth Street 
 Wauwatosa WI 53222     

Re: Modification of Termination Provisions of Existing Long Term Incentive Award Agreements 

Dear Todd: 
 This letter agreement relates to outstanding award
agreements previously granted to you pursuant to the Company’s 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended (together with prior plans referenced therein, the “2014 Plan”), which award agreements are identified on Exhibit A hereto
(collectively, the “Existing Award Agreements”). In order to align the treatment of awards under the Existing Award Agreements in the event of a termination without cause with the treatment thereof under the forms of award agreements
adopted by the Compensation Committee for use under the Company’s 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “New Award Agreement Forms”), the Committee has deemed it advisable and in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to
modify the Existing Award Agreements as described herein. It is hereby agreed that each Existing Award Agreement is modified to provide that in the event of a termination without cause, the termination date under each Existing Award Agreement shall
be the date upon which your employment agreement with the Company would have expired had you been provided a notice of nonrenewal of such employment agreement by the Company on the date of notice to you of termination of your employment without
cause. 
  

	
	 On Behalf of the Briggs & Stratton

Corporation Compensation Committee

	
	/s/ Brian C. Walker
	
	Brian C. Walker
	Committee Chair


 Acknowledged and Agreed: 

	
	
	 /s/ Todd J. Teske

	Todd J. Teske

 Post Office Box 702, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0702, USA◾ 414.259.5333 ◾ basco.com 







 EXHIBIT A 

EXISTING AWARD AGREEMENTS 
  

			
	 Type of Award
	  	Grant Date
	 Nonqualified Stock Option
	  	08/21/2017
	 Incentive Stock Option
	  	08/21/2017
	 Performance Units
	  	08/21/2017
	 Restricted Stock
	  	08/21/2017
	 Incentive Stock Option
	  	08/22/2016
	 Nonqualified Stock Option
	  	08/22/2016
	 Performance Units
	  	08/22/2016
	 Restricted Stock
	  	08/22/2016
	 Performance Share Units
	  	08/18/2015
	 Restricted Stock
	  	08/18/2015
	 Nonqualified Stock Option
	  	08/18/2015
	 Incentive Stock Option
	  	08/18/2015
	 Nonqualified Stock Option
	  	10/21/2014
	 Incentive Stock Option
	  	10/21/2014
	 Restricted Stock
	  	08/19/2014
	 Restricted Stock
	  	08/20/2013
	 Incentive Stock Option
	  	08/20/2013
	 Nonqualified Stock Option
	  	08/20/2013

 Post Office Box 702, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0702, USA◾ 414.259.5333 ◾ basco.com
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 104

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Christopher J. Locke, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Rewards Network Inc.; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 26, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/ CHRISTOPHER J.
LOCKE                         
|                        |  |  |  | Christopher J. Locke                             
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT CHRISTOPHER STEVEN RICE,

Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-91 March 27, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Susan St. John, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. BLACK, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Annette JONES, Appellant, v. Ross MADOLE, Administrator of the Estate of Ida Sauerwein, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 10752.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 22, 1940.

G. Woodson Morris and Tom H. King, both of San Antonio, for appellant.

Terrell, Davis, Hall & Clemens and A. V. Knight, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion. Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. J. M. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
|                               |
|-------------------------------|
|                               |  |  |
| DATED: November 12, 2013 |   | /s/ Robert E. Rout |
|                          |   | Robert E. Rout |
|                          |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer |
<PAGE>
                                  Exhibit 10.8
           SUMMARY OF COMPANY'S 1999 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN (MIP)
                             Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.


Under the terms of the MIP, a minimum rate of return (threshold) on
stockholders' equity must be achieved before bonuses can be awarded.  The
threshold for executive officers was established at the after-tax cost of
capital on the assumption that returns in excess of the threshold would lead to
increases in stockholder value.  Once this criteria is met, the total amount of
bonus available for distribution to eligible executive officers, including the
Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") under the MIP is based on a percentage
in excess of the minimum return on stockholders' equity.  Individual bonus
amounts paid to the Company's executive officers for services rendered in 1999,
including the CEO, were based on a pre-determined percentage limitation on each
individual's base salary (in no case does the applicable limit exceed 100% of
base salary) and the percentage of the overall MIP target achieved.  These pre-
determined percentages were established by the Compensation Committee.

Under the terms of the MIP, the Company's eligible executive officers were
entitled to receive and were awarded bonuses under the MIP for the year ended
December 31, 1999.
#### Railway Express Agency, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Atlantic & Pacific Wire & Cable Co., Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 30, 1958.

*512*James V. Lione*and *Marcus M. Curry*for appellant.

*Sidney W. Bothstein*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In accordance with the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act a carrier is bound to demand and collect the rates set forth in its tariffs for transportation of goods. The consignee by accepting delivery of the shipment becomes liable for the full amount of the transportation charges as established by the tariffs of the carrier on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and Civil Aeronautics Board. No act or omission of the carrier will preclude it from collecting its lawful charges and no showing of hardship on the part of the consignee will justify a retention of'any part of the lawful tariff charges. The consignee, however, is not without redress since after it pays the charges it is entitled to file a claim with the carrier for any damages occasioned by delay or other omission of the carrier.

It was error therefore to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and judgment directed for plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint, with costs, without prejudice to the rights of the defendant to institute such action as it may be advised for the alleged loss occasioned by the alleged delay in delivery of the shipment.

Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
# :^l5bt5>-P " t e .
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C
Willia mH
. Keye s an d DeWitt "Jack " Ferrel l

V
. McMin n County , Tennesse e Complainant s
Responden t 

### 't^/STV.^ '

FA A Docke t

16-08-1 2
NOTIC E O FEXTENSIO N O FTIM E Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.11(a) , th e Directo r doe s hereb y exten dth e dat e tha t th e Director' s initia l determinatio n wil l b e rendere di n th e above-reference dcas e t o Octobe r 27 , 2009
. A n extensio n i s necessary becaus e th e Agenc y require s additiona l tim e t o revie w informatio n i t believe s i s essentia l for

afair an dcomplet e hearin g o f th e matter . 

# ® /C.^k^X^ ^

Randal l S
. Fiert z Directo r o f Offic e o f Airpor t Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s Dat e

' C 3
OCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n Augus t

i8 " , 2009, 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid ) o r personall y delivered , atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

addresse dto : Willia mH
. Keye s 12 1 Count y Roa d56 9 Englewood , Tennesse e 3732 9

Complainan t Dewit t T
. Ferrel l P.O
. Bo x 20 6 Athens , Tennesse e 37371-020 6

Complainan t Joh n Gentry , Mayo r McMirmCount y McMii mCount y Court

Hous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3

Responden t Davi dCrews , Chairma n McMii mCount y Commissio n McMin n Count y Airpor t

Committe e McMii mCoimt y Court

Hous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Avenu e Athens , Tennesse e 3730 3

Responden t FA A Par t 1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docke t FA A Offic e o f

Airports , Complianc e an dFiel dOperations , ACO-lO O



# r£u t laton e SWigaru Offic e o f Airpor t Complianc e an d Fiel dOperation s
Ricardo GarzaAppellee/s 

# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** April 9, 2014 N o s . 04 - 14 - 00232 - CR , 04 - 14 - 00233 - CR, & 04 - 14 - 00234 - CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant v. Ricardo GARZA , Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No s . 413042 , 413041, & 413040 The Honorable Michael La Hood, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 04 - 14 - 00232 - CR, 04 - 14 - 00233 - CR , and 04 - 14 - 00234 - CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, if supplementatio n of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be arg ued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of April, 2014 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis 

FAMILY CARE HOME HEALTH, INC. AND 

 AMCOMP ASSURANCE CORPORATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0823-04-3 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 10, 2004 

SUSAN C. NYE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (S. Vernon Priddy III; Cecil H. Creasey, Jr.; Sands Anderson Marks & 

Miller, on brief), for appellants. 

 (Wanda A. Dotson; George L. Townsend; Chandler, Franklin & 

O’Bryan, on brief), for appellee. 

 Family Care Home Health, Inc. and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission awarding compensation benefits to Susan Nye (claimant), and 

finding that (1) she was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits for the period from July 

18, 2002 through July 31, 20021

; and (2) she made a good faith effort to market her residual 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Employer argues for the first time on appeal that the commission incorrectly recited 

claimant’s pre-injury average weekly wage on page six of its opinion, substituting claimant’s 

workers’ compensation rate for her pre-injury combined average weekly wage. Employer 

contends this error formed the only reason the commission excused claimant from returning to 

Progressive Nursing to seek work and concluded that she had no obligation to market her 

residual work capacity during the period from July 18, 2002 through July 31, 2002. Employer 

did not raise this argument before the commission in a motion for rehearing or a motion for 

reconsideration so as to allow the commission the opportunity to address it and to correct any 

perceived error. Accordingly, we are barred from considering it for the first time on appeal. See

Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dept., 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003); 

Rule 5A:18. Moreover, our review of the commission’s opinion reveals that its misstatement of 

claimant’s pre-injury average weekly wage on page six of its opinion was not the sole basis for 

its decision to award claimant temporary partial disability benefits for the period from July 18, 

2002 through July 31, 2002. In addition, in the award section of its opinion, the commission 
 - 2- 

work capacity during the period from December 15, 2002 through June 24, 2003. We have 

reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Nye v. Family Care 

Home Health, Inc., VWC File No. 211-66-13 (Mar. 5, 2004). We dispense with oral argument 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 

correctly calculated claimant’s temporary partial disability benefits for that period using her 

pre-injury average weekly wage of $500.79.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    001-16857
(Commission File Number)
    
    72-0487309
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
 2500 CityWest Boulevard, 
Suite 2200, 
Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77042
(Zip Code)
 (713) 361-2600
 Not Applicable
 
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
   Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
   SIGNATURES
  HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC.By:

/s/ Ronald D. MogelRonald D. MogelVice President and
Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit Index
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the quarterly report of Wilhelmina International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark E. Schwarz, Principal 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, to my knowledge:




1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




August 16, 2010

/s/ Mark E. SchwarzName:
Mark E. SchwarzTitle:
Chief Executive Officer and

Chairman of the Board

(Principal Executive Officer)