alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
.. 

-· 

REF ID:A67322 

Pl'Ole••or John YOn Jeumanra 

1'be Inat.t. t<e tor Advanced !. ~ 

Pr.I.neat.on l'h21nr•1t7 

Princewn,, Sew Jer8Q 

0.U'" Prole$sor 1".1# l•urnann• 

-... 

lerl.al.1 \ ~ \ "3 

~'::;"'"~~ \"'\'S~ 

Ibo 1nclosed "llot.1t1cs:tton ot Pm'aonnel Aot.i.on" 

u M!lt ~u on tm uewnptton t.bat 1f1U.1111ght lUr.e w 

haft lt 1n 70ar 1'Ue.. You need do notbing ato\lt. t.m 

tom acept to tile it. Incas• 70u. nave alntad7 

taken note of 1fnr bajxac rat.ad onl.7 u 11Satlst•ot.o17" 

at. entrance t.q>On 7001r duU• 1.md.er t.bi• appointment, 

ploua do iiot. tel attl"Onted1 UJa Oovtirna1Cnt. DtN bu 

1-o .and onlJ t.lo rating• - •..i•ti.•tactoqt' and un1aU.s• 

¥•tol7"- . 

With. cordial oi-Un&•; I •• 

ISAcerel7, 

IJVJll 

lotJ.tieatJ.on of 

P•raonne.1 Aotlon 

COi AG 

c/s 

S/ASST 

M/R1 Self'-explanatoJ.'7. 

WILLIAM P. ratmUI 

Special A•silltmt 

w. r. lriedman/S/A••t/60493/19 Mar )3 

--- - - - -

'"E\_p_p r-o-ve-d-:-f:o-o-r ~R~el~e-a s-e~b~y--:N~S~A~o-n ..,,.0..,,..6-"""'2=0....,_ 2=-=o....,.1....,.4_p_u-rs_u_a-nt_t_o'""'E ...... o-. 1""""3"""'"5-2a 

! 

/'
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.4

               THE CARBIDE/GRAPHITE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
        For the Fiscal Year and Each of the Quarters in the Fiscal Year
                              ended July 31, 1996
            (in thousands, except share and per share information)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                           1st Quarter   2nd Quarter   3rd Quarter   4th Quarter   Fiscal 1996
                                           -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Earnings Information:
---------------------
Income from continuing operations           $    2,659    $    3,693    $    3,980    $    3,987    $   14,319
Extraordinary loss on early
 extinguishment of debt, net                      (828)       (1,105)          (67)         (177)       (2,177)
                                           -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
Net income applicable to Common Stock       $    1,831    $    2,588    $    3,913    $    3,810    $   12,142
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
 
Common and Common Equivalent Shares:
------------------------------------
 Weighted average shares outstanding         6,678,920     7,390,738     7,873,503     8,201,837     7,545,334
 Common shares assumed issuable under
  Performance Unit Plan                        125,358       125,438        23,389        42,852        79,259
 Common shares issuable upon exercise
   of outstanding stock options:
  Primary                                    1,341,600     1,145,286       802,761       512,379       952,858
  Fully diluted                              1,347,523     1,156,755       808,860       512,379       958,057
                                           -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
 Common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding for the period:
  Primary                                    8,145,878     8,661,462     8,699,653     8,757,068     8,577,451
  Fully diluted                              8,151,801     8,672,931     8,705,752     8,757,068     8,582,650
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
 
Earnings per Share Information:
-------------------------------
 Income from continuing operations:
  Primary                                   $     0.33    $     0.43    $     0.46    $     0.46    $     1.67
  Fully diluted                             $     0.33    $     0.43    $     0.46    $     0.46    $     1.67
 Net income applicable to Common Stock:
  Primary                                   $     0.22    $     0.30    $     0.45    $     0.44    $     1.42
  Fully diluted                             $     0.22    $     0.30    $     0.45    $     0.44    $     1.41
</TABLE>
#### Johnson, Appellant, vs. Bank of Sun Prairie, Respondent.

*January 14*

February *3, 1914.*

*Oral contracts: Yalidity: Statute of frauds: Promise to pay debt of another: Executed contract.*

1. Where plaintiff turned over to defendant certain accounts for collection under an oral agreement that defendant might apply the proceeds upon the debt of a third person to defendant, such agreement was not a promise by plaintiff to answer for the debt of another person, and hence was not required by the statute of frauds (sec. 2307, Stats.) to be in writing.

2. So far as moneys were collected and applied under such agreement the contract was fully executed and that part of the contract could not be set aside even if the original promise were held to be within the statute.

• Appeak from an order of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Eat Stevers, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The action was brought to compel an accounting for moneys collected on a lot of open accounts which plaintiff turned over to the defendant for collection. By the answer it is alleged that the accounts were turned over to the defendant under the agreement that the bant might collect the same and apply the proceeds so far as necessary to pay the debt of *604one Kehl, tbe plaintiff’s son-in-law, and in consideration the promise of the bank (which was afterwards fully carried out) that it would dismiss a certain lawsuit then pending against Kehl to recover a part of the debt and refrain from entering judgment upon a judgment note given by Kehl for the remainder of his debt; that there has been collected $513.89 upon the accounts, all of which has been applied upon Kehl’s debt, leaving $40.58 still unpaid thereon. The bank claims the right to hold the accounts and collect enough thereon to pay the balance of Kehl’s debt. A general demurrer to the answer was overruled, and plaintiff appeals.

Eor the appellant there was a brief by *Bagley & Bead,*and oral argument by *W. B. Bagley.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by Ollis, *Nelson & Bushnellj*and oral argument by A. *H. Bushnell.*

WiNSLOW) O. J.

The demurrer was properly overruled because:

1. ■ So far as the moneys which have been collected and applied are concerned, the contract has been fully executed, and under very familiar principles that part of the contract could not be now set aside even if the original promise were held to be within the statute. *Larsen v. Johnson, 18 Wis.*300, 47 N. W. 615.

2. The turning out of securities for collection under the agreement that the proceeds may be applied on a third person’s debt is not a promise to pay another’s debt, and hence not required by the statute of frauds to be in writing. Whether any money was ever collected or collectible on the accounts there would be no breach of any promise made by the plaintiff.

*By the GourL*— Order affirmed.
Colonel De.le K. liq 

Chief, BSA Far Eut 

APO 500 

San franoieco, Cal1torn1a 

Dear Colbnel Kirlg1 

REF ID:A63974 

1 Januar.v 1955 

You were moot kind to get me the Japmeae translation or 

Admiral Theobald'• book a.'!?J! :timl •ecret ot Pear1 Harbor, and. 

e•pacia.113 •uch a :a.ice treah copy, complete vith Jacket and 

outside ..U blurb.. I've had the latter tranal.ated and it'• 

a dilly! 

Many thank& tar ;your 11tt, but., pleaae, when )'OU do this 

to • 7011 make me beeitate to ask ;you to Nnd • anything •lee 

you •hould run across .and th1nk might well. belo:og in my collection. 

Anyhow, thankB again and m:y beat vi•hea to you ft»' 1955. 

Sincerelf 1 

WILLI.AM 1. J'.RIEtMAlt 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Exhibit
        32
 
 Certification
        Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 (18
        U.S.C. 1350)
 
 Persuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
        undersigned Managing General Partner of Detonics Small Arms Limited, a
        Washington limited partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the
        best
        of such General Partner's knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1.
        The
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the
        "Form
        10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
  
 /s/MICHEL
        E. MAES
 Michel
        E.
        Maes
 Managing
        General Partner
 Date:
        10-10-07
DIGEST OF TEE DIRECTOR'S 

STAFF CONFERENCE 

5 OCT 1954 

TO: Chiefs of Offices 

and Staff' Divisions 

FROM: Chief of Staff 

1. CHIEF OF STAFF 

a. Announced that Mr. Walter Sharp will repeat his lecture, 

"Ma.chines in the Service of Cryptanalysis, 11 at AHS Theater, Thursday, 

14 October, at 1030, for the consu~er agencies. Chiefs of Offices and 

Divisions will designate NSA people who will attend. 

b. Called attention to the start of the 1955 Community Chest 

campaign. 

2. SPECIA.L ASSISTANT (Mr. Friedman) 

a. Reported that the Scientific Advisory Board has postponed 

its meeting until spring. 

b. Euq>has ized the need for everyone in the Agency to follow 

the rules set down with regard to consultants. NSA Regulation 10-30, 

dated 12 July 1954, must be followed. to the letter. 

3· TRAilUNG 

Stated that 352 Agency personnel have been sponsored in college 

training courses this year. 

4. PUNS AND POLICY 

Announced that Mr. Hugh Erskine, former Chief NSAEUR, is 

assigned to P/P as Chief, Current Operations Branch. 

5 . PERSON"l'IEL 

Reminded the Staff that the time for participation in the 

Uniform Services Contingency Benefit Act will soon be terminated; 

1 November is the deadline elate. A bulletin will be circulated designating contact points wi~hin NSS and AHS for inf'ormation and assistance. 

6. SPECIAL ASSISTANT {Capt. Holtwick) 

Announced that Mr. J. w. Regner, TNG, and Major C. J. Hogan, 

PERS, have been named as assistants to him as a TMB working group to 

look into Service Cryptologic career fields for officer and enlisted 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

CONFIDENTIAL 
personnel. The group will be visiting you for facts and opinions 

in an effort to determine what can be done to improve and standardize the cryptologic career fields for the Services within the current 

limitations. Recommendations for legislation will be ma.de to permit 

the Services to reach a certain degree of professionalism. 

7. HEADQUARTERS COMMANDANT 

a. Requested that his office be notified at least 24 hours 

in advance when parkirig space is required for visitors attending 

conferences at NSS. 

b. 

replacement. 

signment. 

Distribution: 

Special 

Cdr. Mindte introduced Cdr. William T. Sorensen as his 

Cdr. Mind.ta leaves the Agency this week for a. new asu e~~a-.J Asst to the ~ Sta.ff' 

CONFIDBNTIAL
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00547

- CR

Marcos Landin, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 331ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- DC

- 19

- 904017 , THE HONORABLE CHAN TAL ELDRIDGE, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R
PER CURIAM Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due October 17, 2019 . On counsel’s
motio ns , the time for filing was extended to January 16, 2020 . Appellant’s counsel has now filed

a third motion, requesting that the Court extend the ti me for filing appellant’s brief. We grant in part the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than Febr uary 14,
2020 . No further extension of time will be g ranted and failure to comply with this order will
result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
It is ordered on January 23, 2019

.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Tri na Do Not Publish
# CE2004088EN.01049401.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/494 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/494

---

(2004/C 88 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0306/04

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Use of sky marshals

Subject:

The US authorities have demanded that European airlines deploy armed sky marshals as a protective measure on certain transatlantic flights. Some Member States are willing to use armed sky marshals, whereas others are strongly opposed.

The type of ammunition is a crucial factor when deploying armed sky marshals, as conventional ammunition cannot be used due to its penetrating power.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

| 1. | What type of ammunition do the armed sky marshals use? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What type of ammunition do the armed sky marshals use?

| 2. | Does the type of ammunition used comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the type of ammunition used comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights?

| 3. | What further action does the Commission plan to take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What further action does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

(16 March 2004)

The Commission has no information on the weapons, ammunition or intervention techniques used by armed sky marshals. In view of the nature of these duties, such information is confidential. The methods used by the police forces of an individual Member State are a matter for that State, which is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

In view of US demands on the airlines of several Member States to deploy armed sky marshals on certain high-risk flights it will be necessary in future to establish a common response enabling cooperation with the US authorities to be organised on a more balanced basis. The Commission regards sky marshals as just one aspect of the broader issue of the need to adopt optimum security measures for transatlantic or domestic flights. The Commission is about to launch a wide-ranging debate on this subject with the Member States which takes the existing divergences of opinion into account.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-50860, 33-50862, 33-50864, 33-54140, 33-
57734, 33-78804, 33-92312, 33-95288, 333-22631, 333-26857, 333-28745, 333-28675,
333-40671, 333-46259, 333-53705, 333-53707, 333-78553, and 333-78551) of Banyan
Systems Incorporated of our report dated February 2, 2000 except for Note T, for
which the date is March 2, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which is
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 2, 2000 relating to
the financial statement schedule in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2000
##### 



Exhibit 10
(27)
 Layne Christensen Company  Mineral Exploration Division Incentive Compensation Plan
 Effective February 1, 2008
 SECTION  I. Definitions.
          SECTION  II. Purpose of the Plan.
   SECTION  III. Administration.




---



##### 



SECTION IV. Participation.
   SECTION V. Calculation of Benchmarks.
  SECTION VI. Generation of Bonus Pools.
  SECTION VII. Determination of Amount of Award.
   2




---



##### 



SECTION VIII. Type of Award
  SECTION IX. Termination of Employment
   SECTION X. Miscellaneous
     SECTION XI. Effective Date.
  3
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60222

__________________

PHOENIX ROOFING INC, Petitioner,

versus
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondents.

______________________________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Occupational

Safety and Health Review Commission

(90-2148)

______________________________________________

February 15, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Petitioner, Phoenix Roofing Inc. (Phoenix) appeals the decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commis sion) which upheld a sanction against Phoenix for a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 19 26.500(b)(4). After examining the
record and the briefs and considering the same, we conclude: that
the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the regulation at issueis reasonable; that the Administrative Law Judge's factual findings

are supported by the record; that Phoenix has failed to show that
the conclusions of the Commission are either arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the
law; and that Phoenix had reasonable notice of the Secretary's interpretation of the regulation by which it was sanctioned. No reversible error being shown by Phoenix, the order of the Commission is AFFIRMED.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 154



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-16-205 PATRICIA GARRETT APPELLANT V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE Opinion Delivered April 7, 2016 MOTION FOR OUT OF TIME APPEAL AND FOR RULE ON CLERK
MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM
Appellant Patricia Garrett, by and through her attorney, Valerie L. Goudie, brings this motion for belated appeal. Garrett seeks to appeal the order terminating her parental rights, which was entered on November 9, 2015. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6- 9(b)(1), in dependency-neglect cases, the notice of appeal must be filed within twenty-one days following the entry of the order from which the appeal is being taken. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due no later than November 30, 2015; however, it was not filed until January 8, 2016. Goudie filed a motion for new trial on November 18, 2015, and she states that it was her mistaken belief that the filing of a motion for new trial extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal by thirty days from the deemed-denied date. The express purpose of Rule 6-9(b) is to expedite the appellate process in dependency-neglect cases. See, e.g. , Ratliff v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. , 371 Ark. 534, 268 S.W.3d 322 (2007) (per curiam). Although Rule 4(b)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil allows the deadline for a notice of appeal to be extended when certainCite as 2016 Ark. 154

posttrial motions have been filed, we have held that we will not extend that rule to dependency-neglect cases because doing so would vitiate the purpose of Rule 6-9(b). Id ., 268 S.W.3d 322. Goudie admits that she erred in failing to file a timely notice of appeal. When an attorney candidly admits fault for failing to perfect an appeal, we will grant the motion for belated appeal, and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See McDonald v. State , 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). Accordingly, we grant the motion and forward a copy of this opinion to the Committee. Motion granted. W OOD , J., not participating. Valerie L. Goudie, for appellant. No response.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                   EXHIBIT 27

                       MEDIQ INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            Financial Data Schedule
                                  (Unaudited)
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  1,466
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          72,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                           13,362
<INVENTORY>                                            22,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       96,533
<PP&E>                                                264,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                        163,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        319,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  30,586
<BONDS>                                               492,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 116,638
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                           (336,138)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          319,979
<SALES>                                                 8,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       50,898
<CGS>                                                   6,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          47,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         (106)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     13,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (9,388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (3,214)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (6,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (6,174)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (10.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (10.03)



</TABLE>