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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<CASH>                                           3,705
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,685
<PP&E>                                          12,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,303
<BONDS>                                          4,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           203
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,870
<SALES>                                          4,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,080
<CGS>                                            3,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (159)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (55)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00765-CR

Antorr Lamar ALLISON,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0418

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2014

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

On April 8, 2013, pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Antorr Lamar Allison was 

sentenced to two years in prison, his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community 

supervision for two years. On July 31, 2013, the State filed a motion to revoke Allison’s 

community supervision, alleging Allison had violated two conditions of his community 

supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found that Allison had violated a condition of his 

community supervision. The trial court revoked Allison’s community supervision and sentenced 

him to two years in prison. Allison appealed. 
04-13-00765-CR

Allison’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he discusses two potential

points of error but nevertheless concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

Counsel states that Allison was provided with copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw, and 

was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Bruns v. State, 

924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Allison has not filed a pro se 

brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree that this appeal is frivolous 

and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the 

motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, 

no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n. 1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Allison wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date 

the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Karen Angelini, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




THIRD AMENDMENT TO NOTE




     This Third Amendment to Note (the “Third Amendment”) is made as of this 12 day of July, 2011
by and between Bank of America, N.A. (the “Bank”) having an office located at 100 Federal Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 and iRobot Corporation (the “Borrower”), a Delaware corporation having
an office at 8 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 to that certain Note dated June 5, 2007
executed by the Borrower in favor of the Bank (as amended, the “Note”). Any capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings designated in the Note.



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, the Borrower did on June 5, 2007 execute, seal and deliver to the Bank the Note; and



     WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Bank increase the maximum principal of the Note;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration, receipt of whereof is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by and
between the Borrower and the Bank as follows:




	1.	 	The Note is hereby amended by replacing where applicable the references to “Forty Million
Dollars” and “$40,000,000.00” with “Seventy Five Million Dollars” and “$75,000,000.00”.
	 
	2.	 	The Note, as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect and all terms hereof are
hereby ratified and confirmed by the Borrower. Except for specifically provided herein, all
other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.
	 
	3.	 	The Borrower by its execution of this Third Amendment in the space provided below,
represents, warrants and agrees that the Borrower has no claims, defenses, counterclaims or
offsets against the Bank through the date of this Third Amendment in connection with the Note
or any of the other documents executed in connection therewith and, to the extent that any
such claim, defense, counterclaim or offset may exist, the Borrower by its execution of this
Third Amendment in the space provided below, hereby affirmatively WAIVES and RELEASES the Bank
from same.
	 
	4.	 	This Third Amendment shall take effect as a sealed instrument under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts as of the date first above written.
	 
	5.	 	Any and all references to the Note and any instrument previously and now hereafter executed
by the Borrower shall be deemed to refer to the Note as amended by this




-1-









 






     Third Amendment and any future amendments hereafter entered into between the Borrower and
the Bank.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment as of the date and
year first above written as a sealed instrument.



	 	 	 

	WITNESS:
	 	iROBOT CORPORATION










	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Paul Tavalone
 	 	 	 	 	 




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:  	 /s/ John Leahy
 	 
	 	 	Title: EVP Chief Financial Officer    	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Scott W. Vokey
 	 
	 	 	Title: Senior Vice President        	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




-2-
EXHIBIT
32.1





PSI
CORPORATION


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


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





I, David
Foni, the Chief Executive Officer of PSI Corporation (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Date:
      October 28, 2008
              By:
              /s/ David FoniDavid FoniChief
      Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 144

 October Term, A.D. 2020

November 25, 2020

RUSSELL GEORGE MACKIE,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-20-0179

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

[¶ 1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that 

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant to a 

plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to (1) strangulation of a 

household member and (2) misdemeanor domestic battery. Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 6-2-509(a)(i); 

Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 6-2-511. On the felony, the district court imposed a seven to ten-year 

sentence. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s May 20, 2020, 

“Sentencing Order.”

[¶ 2] On September 25, 2020, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a 

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 

S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently ordered that Appellant 

may “file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the Court to 

consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a 

pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw 

and, if appropriate, make a final decision” on this appeal. This Court notes that Appellant 

did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted.
[¶ 3] Now, following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by 

appellate counsel, this Court finds appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s “Sentencing Order” should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶ 4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant Russell George Mackie, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record 

for Appellant; and it is further

[¶ 5] ORDERED that the Carbon County District Court’s May 20, 2020, “Sentencing 

Order” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶ 6] DATED this 25th day of November, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MICHAEL K. DAVIS

Chief Justice
... ... .~ 

From 

To 

Via 

: 

. • 

Subject: 

REF ID:A65~9 ,..... · .. ....__ . 

-

• 

24 J:uJ.y 1951 

AFSA-34 

AFSA-OOT~ AFSA-03 

/' 

Visit o SOAG Members. 

Mr. J. O. McPherson and Dr. Shannon ma.de a follow-up visit to the 

SCAG session of a week ago. They arrived about 0900 July 19 and stayed 

until the next afternoon. Most of the 19th was spent in Mr. Marston•s 

office going over the evidence he has for his reconstructions. Some 

time was devoted to LCDR Hall's proof of the Cramer ConJecture on throws 

of wired wheels. This had°'been presented as a classic among the unsolved 

problems just the previous week. Interestingly enough, Shannon had the 

same approach, but was off the track slightly. 

July 20th was spent at l;'avSecSta talking about the mathematical 

theo1"7 of wired wheels, with e~basis on the Roberts approach. Marston, 

Shepard, Wagner, Reimers and Levenson participated. Some discussion was 

\ devoted to BOOTS~S. 

Eoth McPherson and Shannon were highly interested. 

.. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-15-2014 p-ursuantto E .0. 1352a 

SECRET 

I •
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Jay A. Herman, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Delphax Technologies Inc. (the Company), dohereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on From 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with therequirements 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.      Date: February 10, 2006 By:            /s/ Jay A. Herman              Jay A. Herman              Acting Chief Financial Officer
••• _.,.,,..,, Jt..C. .... ~ ... ~%.·~ c.. .. 

Hr. Jol.ui C. HcPhcruon 

11.oe DftJeiden.t 

Rl!:F ID:A67637 

Inte.rnatioM.l Buatneas Machines Corporation SYO Mad.l.IK>n Avenue 

Bev Yo:rk 2~ '- llev York 

De•r J<:r. t:crtter::ion: 

l ua much ip:aU..f'ied at 1011.r acce;~u-.nce or tho inv1 t:it.ion 

toi biJ a P.l\..C:'Ler ot our klC'lf Advi mr, Doard. 

At \ho t.tnw l laat wn;,te 10u. w had ect the J.1C?ct~11£ for 

26 l&n\Ull'J 19)3, bu.t thi• date bavirla 11rov£:d una'-ll table f'or 

cert•lln !'ll'll\'fl:ra1 thfJ date vas poet;.'Oned~-S 1obru.UJ- J$S.) .. 

tou wU.l receive • lottc.r a.Lout th.ia !n & dq or t.1«1. 

CO& AG 

C/S 

OOHS 

Si:r..c~, 

IAL!>JI J. C.UO:.ME 

Major Gener.:t,. us Aray 

Director 

H/R1 Selt""8Xpl.anator)'. Reference Ser. 0819, dtd 22 Dec S2 

W.F.Friedm.an/CX>NS/60493/12 Jan S3 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
TO: Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors

FROM: Ron Tan

DATE: September 20, 2010

SUBJECT: Correction to the Rule 321 Board Package for the September 20, 2010

Board Hearing

Staff docketed a Rule 321 Board Package to you on Septemb er 1, 2010. Proposed Amended

Rule 102, Definitions, which is part of the packet

, contains a typographical error. 1 To correct

this error, we have included a revised page 102

- 2 on the reverse side of this memorandum

. R evised page 102

- 2 is hereby integ rated into the September 20, 2010 Rule 321 Board Package

, Attachment 4, Proposed Amended Rule Text

.

1 The reactive organic compound definition lists exempt compounds and assigns item numbers to

them. The correct item number for methyl chloroform (1,1,1

- trichloroethane) is “11” (not “12”).
S. 1698 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen 

An Act 

To exclude payments from State eugenics compensation programs from consideration 

in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, Federal public benefits. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Treatment of Certain Payments 

in Eugenics Compensation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF PAYMENTS FROM STATE EUGENICS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS FROM CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING 

ELIGIBILITY FOR, OR THE AMOUNT OF, FEDERAL PUBLIC 

BENEFITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

payments made under a State eugenics compensation program shall 

not be considered as income or resources in determining eligibility 

for, or the amount of, any Federal public benefit. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term ‘‘Federal public 

benefit’’ means— 

(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or 

commercial license provided by an agency of the United 

States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and 

(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public 

or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit 

for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency 

of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United 

States. 
S. 1698—2 

(2) STATE EUGENICS COMPENSATION PROGRAM.—The term 

‘‘State eugenics compensation program’’ means a program established by State law that is intended to compensate individuals 

who were sterilized under the authority of the State. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
cot 

REF ID:A66893 

Wt'a Jcl'G '-'• lti~~ 

WO.~ 

l.nttlt'!'!tl.t.!.onr.O. Jui!!O:JO J~~ lJ~~t.L• 

S"'iO~A~ 

N"~ tctk 22, S4N ?afk 

1lent l~~u 

!'~~ .Y~ ~" -.:h tor ecefl'U.At; :'fll a cet'br.m c.Cl';}:f ~ 1;rr~ 

l.1Jt-w tJt G J\tlr 1:$3 to :';('._ ~. J:-;. t~~ rw :so t.b"1t: 

M !:t ti~t to~1tl c.all. t.3 yea. .tt-<ti v:~ 'V'tit'F ·~1 ~-th~ t.~ 

i~wn. 

~ 

t;.,at ;~ -.~ ~'1-;J t.:> ~ vlt,.; ~ ~ ~ 2?".JJ. "Jril;f, w 1"1° 11f!th t..~ n~y t;::r..~i !or ti .,..l~lo ()!' \..-"OUkir. 

PJ.1-:Jt fo ~.tan;H,1 C."i.: ?;r-!tf' • •!J:.::1 ~~ ~::: '..' f32:~,~.:.0t7 ;ti.~1'f 

'WM .t wti' ~tA ::.t ~ ~~'WM:u .. 

1":\t.j 'lM *-"t ~ Jt;i'lll~nfi Us t~ tJ~ ~ ~,,. lt:l'~ tit ~ :t?t~ ~~ :.i t. ~.. !lt;~J0::1n _~!"!. > ~ tS11! --c. t.J~.c- t'J'";.'1 ~J,1n 

tlal ~ ... 'rd:- tecw ~t 1~ ~vblts~~1-nk ~1011 wC.i ~.rvi.dc t.i."'11:-

*lt!. ¥'1 ~ ei\'llCt, int-~t !a t. t..n ~111: t.~ t':f'l.U'" ~°"~!/ "' t.. "\t ~~ i:tl al.1' dstfl..1F.t~~. hitt~4tt: w ~h!ll':i;:al ~~ ~­

cltr:!..11 ~~a ~ 4.-"I! 1t !. .~t1 !:.!":.? _...'1~.:;> ;-'!.:a~ t.o 'lti~~ 1-oiJJ\! ... ii.~bl.o -t.n.JJll!.~ :;.td S"!~ \.~ ~--r Jb !.l:"'l 'tr~ a <.t~ bQ.~JtiC 

' 1-t--..,.'"'ttl~ c.!'~ \b!.ch. :.~t.1'Q • ... ·;~.! -~ ~ :.~~ t~ a~ lvat. ~ ~. '!he ;r;;lO '.t'O'Ui.:i ~-~en ~:c:::~~~~ ~ ::.."t..')tll~ ~ 

~ tu\/ a.~! ~~""l:l' ~ ;t'....ml, :'V:;-.::t"''WoiJ 

! 11..-'t"f«! ,.,·::t)d. tJ-:nt. t.n7SL\. :irJs:r~ ~ ct1..'lt. ~~ !71.' t;"l:l natt 

fte$fd01 ~s:d.~ tm ti Jul.1. 1htr/' :t-~14..,,,. 1:11 t.~:.v t~ "M")"' 

~ 

·. tnLW~ r,. Fit~llSi 

~.:.\iw ~~.,. - a ~..en-'4t.to ~,, ~u« 

}f/Ri Aok:u:JtA~ r~t ot C41"ban fAP7 ct 

lt.1:' to Dr!, Cairiw Of£~ his aonicoa mt the 

?JSAS.Aa•a mt.tr~. Mr-. ~ liv• Mr. ~Pborson a b1'iot IJOhGdi.4.e pla.'"li'10d fw the 

YrlASAa •tub' ~ \fhm. ~ •sG!Jbl.o 27 Ju>:, fC' tt.ro w.ia, 

V/vhl~/ASST/f:d(J3/J.O ltfJ¥ ~ 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-20-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
# CE2004078EN.01054403.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/544

---

(2004/C 78 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Subject:

Did Commissioner Solbes offer to resign at any time following the Eurostat scandal? If so, why did the Commission consider his resignation inappropriate or inopportune?

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 20 WY 144

October Term, A.D. 20 20

November 25, 2020

RUSSELL GEORGE MACKIE,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff). S

- 20

- 0179



### O RDER 

### A FFIRMING THE 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### ’ S 

### J UDGMENT AND 

### S ENTENCE

[¶ 1 ] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that

A ppellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court

. P ursuant to a

plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to (1) strangulation of a

household member and (2) misdemeanor domestic battery. Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 6

- 2

- 509(a)(i);

Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 6

- 2

- 511. On the felony, t he district court imposed a seven to ten

- year

sentence. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s M ay 20

, 20 20

,

“ S entenc ing Ord e r

. ”

[¶ 2] On September 25 , 20 20 , Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently ordered that Appellant

may “file with this Co urt a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the Court to

consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a

pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw

and, if appropriate, make a final decision” on this appeal. This Court notes that Appellant

did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted.[¶ 3] Now, f ollowing a careful review of the record and the “ Anders brief” submitted by

appellate counsel

, this Court finds appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be

granted and the district court’s “ Sentencing Order ” should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶ 4 ] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, c ourt

- appointed counsel

for A ppellant Russell George Mackie , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record

for A ppellant; and it is further

[¶ 5 ] ORDERED that the Carbon County D istrict C ourt’s M ay 20

, 20 20

, “ S entenc ing

Ord e r ” be , and the same hereby is , affirme d

.

[¶ 6 ] DATED this 25 th day of November , 20 20

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MICHAEL K

. D A VI S

Chief Justice