alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 1 of 33 PAGEID #: 266
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 2 of 33 PAGEID #: 267
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 3 of 33 PAGEID #: 268
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 4 of 33 PAGEID #: 269
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 5 of 33 PAGEID #: 270
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 6 of 33 PAGEID #: 271
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 7 of 33 PAGEID #: 272
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 8 of 33 PAGEID #: 273
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 9 of 33 PAGEID #: 274
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 10 of 33 PAGEID #: 275
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 11 of 33 PAGEID #: 276
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 12 of 33 PAGEID #: 277
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 13 of 33 PAGEID #: 278
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 14 of 33 PAGEID #: 279
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 15 of 33 PAGEID #: 280
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 16 of 33 PAGEID #: 281
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 17 of 33 PAGEID #: 282
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 18 of 33 PAGEID #: 283
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 19 of 33 PAGEID #: 284
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 20 of 33 PAGEID #: 285
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 21 of 33 PAGEID #: 286
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 22 of 33 PAGEID #: 287
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 23 of 33 PAGEID #: 288
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 24 of 33 PAGEID #: 289
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 25 of 33 PAGEID #: 290
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 26 of 33 PAGEID #: 291
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 27 of 33 PAGEID #: 292
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 28 of 33 PAGEID #: 293
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 29 of 33 PAGEID #: 294
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 30 of 33 PAGEID #: 295
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 31 of 33 PAGEID #: 296
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 32 of 33 PAGEID #: 297
Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 47 Filed: 09/12/19 Page: 33 of 33 PAGEID #: 298
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                           DESTRON FEARING CORPORATION

     Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Common and Common Equivalent Share
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                             Quarter Ended December 31,
                                             --------------------------
                                                  1996      1995
                                                  ----      ----


  Net income (loss)                                 $81     ($302)
                                               --------   -------
                                               --------   -------


Weighted average number of common
 and common equivalent shares
 outstanding:

  Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                      11,644    11,186

  Dilutive effect of stock options after
  application of the treasury stock
  method                                            302        --


                                               --------   -------
                                                 11,946    11,186
                                               --------   -------
                                               --------   -------

Net income (loss) per common
 and common equivalent share                      $0.01    ($0.03)
                                               --------   -------
                                               --------   -------


                                     - 13 -
EXHIBIT 21.1









SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT










P.A.M. Transport, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)





P.A.M. Dedicated Services, LLC (Ohio LLC)





P.A.M. Logistics Services, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)





T.T.X., LLC (Texas LLC)





Choctaw Express, LLC (Oklahoma LLC)





Choctaw Brokerage, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)





Decker Transport Co., LLC (Ohio LLC)





Transcend Logistics, Inc. (Indiana Corporation)





East Coast Transport and Logistics, LLC (Arkansas LLC)





S & L Logistics, Inc. (Texas Corporation)





P.A.M. International, Inc. (Ohio Corporation)





P.A.M. Canada, Inc. (Canadian Corporation)
### DJI Aspire 1 SpecificationsDJI Phantom 2 Vision+

Specifications
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-27739, 333-56975, 333-67441,333-83561, 333-45710, 333-68322, 333-96899, 333-118819, 333-03456, 333-137944 and 333-161051 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 6, 2010, relating to the
financial statements of Cost Plus, Inc. and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cost Plus, Inc. for the year ended January 30, 2010.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte and Touche LLP
|San Francisco, California  
|April 6, 2010
**EXHIBIT 10.18**

**DESCRIPTION OF FISCAL 2008 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN**

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors ofSciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted an executive incentive plan for fiscal year 2008. The executive incentive plan is a cash incentive program designed to motivate participants to achieve the Company’s overallcorporate goals and their individual employee objectives, and to reward them for their achievements when those objectives are met. All of the Company’s executive officers are eligible to participate in the executive incentive plan. The annualcash incentive targets are determined as a percentage of base salary for each of the executive officers. 

For the year ending December 31, 2008, theinitial target percentage for our current President and Chief Executive Officer, Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D., was established as 40% of base salary. The fiscal year 2008 target bonus percentage for Hans P. Schmid, President and Managing Director ofSciClone Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., was established at 30% of his fiscal year 2008 base salary. The fiscal year 2008 target bonus percentage for Ivan Hui, Director of Finance, was established at 20% of his fiscal year 2008 base salary.

Cash incentives will be earned and paid pursuant to our executive incentive plan only if we achieve fiscal year 2008 corporate objectives established bythe Board. Our fiscal year 2008 corporate objectives under the executive incentive plan are as follows, aggregated and weighted as indicated: (i) sales targets and cash balances (40%), (ii) commercial, regulatory, product acquisition andresearch and development goals (30%), and (iii) operational goals relating to investor relations and organizational capability (30%). No separate individual objectives are established for Dr. Blobel, however, Dr. Blobel establishesindividual objectives, in addition to these corporate objectives, against which performance of the other executive officers is evaluated. Executive officers may earn up to a maximum 150% of their individual cash incentive target depending upon theCompensation Committee’s assessment of performance in relation to their predetermined objectives.
March 13, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029.

Dear Secretary LaHood:

We, Hutchinson and Bloodgood, LLP, fully support the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA).

As a member of the American Institute of CPAs I have traveled often to Washington DC, and whenever possible I fly into Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) although not on a direct flight. Often these trips are of a public serv ice nature; for example explaining social security reform to members of Congress or speaking with the IRS on tax simplification. These commitments to public service come at a cost of time out of the office. A direct flight from San Diego to National Airport would be fantastic!

In addition, our firm serves national and internat ional clients who would immediately benefit from additional nonstop air service to our nation’s capital. Alaska Airlines service would add a needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. Hutchinson and Bloodgood joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego – Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego – DCA proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Katherine T. Leonard, CPA, MBA, Partner
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    197,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               567,687
<PP&E>                                         229,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 869,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,162,194
<BONDS>                                        291,141
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       169,395
<OTHER-SE>                                   (468,738)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   869,015
<SALES>                                        780,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               780,275
<CGS>                                          511,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               600,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,664
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,503,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,503,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,503,513)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)



</TABLE>
#### Hopewell School District No. 28 *v.*Bush.

Opinion delivered April 1, 1929.

*E. II. Tharp,*for appellant.

*Cunningham*& *Cunningham,*for appellee.

*317Kirby, J.

The sole question presented for determination by this appeal is whether a sohool district, in exercising the right of eminent domain, condemning’ lands for school purposes, acquires the entire interest, the fee, in the lands condemned, or only the right to its exclusive use for such purposes so long as it may he so used.

Act 82 of the Acts of the. 1927 Legislature authorizes the exercise of the power of eminent domain hy the school districts in the State, and provides the procedure therefor. In *School District of Ogden*v. *Smith,*113 Ark. 530, 168 S. W. 1089, this court, construing a like provision in an aiot of the Legislature of 1913 for the condemnation of lands for school purposes, held the power conferred was similar to the power of eminent domain conferred upon railroad corporations.

In *Rinke*v. *Union Special School District,*174 Ark. 59, 294 S. W. 910, a case wherein land was condemned for a site for a school building and grounds, the court held the rule for the measure of the owner’s compensation for the land condemned was as declared in *Fort Smith*& *Van Buren District*v. *Scott,*103 Ark. 405, 147 S. W. 440, “the market value thereof at the time of the taking, for all purposes, comprehending its availability for any use to which it is plainly adapted, as well as the most valuable purpose for which it can be used anci will bring most in the market.”

The interest in the property to be taken or condemned in this proceeding was expressly stated to be the fee, and no lesser estate would be sufficient to satisfy the purpose of the taking — a site for the school building- — and the price to be paid or the compensation for the land condemned was the full market value thereof for all purposes, and the court erred in not making an order condemning the said land for school purposes and vesting the title thereto, the entire interest, the fee, in the school district, in accordance with the statute. See 15'Cyc. 1020, and 20 C. J: 1223, § 583.

*318The words “for school'purposes” in the statute are not a limitation upon the interest or estate taken in the lands condemned, but upon the right to exercise the power of eminent domain.

For the error designated the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment vesting the entire interest and fee in the lands condemned in the school district.
Exhibit 4.10


 


AMENDMENT TO SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


(Series B-2)


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO
SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of August 19, 2015 by and among Big Teams LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company (the “Company”), and MOKO Social Media Limited, a company organized under
the laws of Australia (the “Purchaser”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Purchaser are parties to a Share Purchase Agreement dated April 24, 2015 (the “Agreement”) and desire
to enter into this Amendment to reflect their previous mutual agreement to extend the date for payment of the third installment
of the Initial Investment Amount;


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Section 1.2(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated
                                         as follows:



 


(a) Purchaser
irrevocably commits invest One Million U.S. Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in the Company (“Initial Investment Amount”),
which shall paid in immediately available funds to the Company pursuant to the following schedule: (i) Two Hundred Thousand U.S.
Dollars ($200,000.00) at Closing; (ii) Five Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars ($500,000.00) on or before July 1, 2015; and (iii) Three
Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars ($300,000.00) on or before October 1, 2015.


 


		2.	The capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement unless specifically defined
in this Amendment.



 


		3.	This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
and all of which together shall constitute one and the same Amendment.



 


		4.	Except as hereby amended, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. From and after the date
hereof, any reference to the Agreement shall refer to the Agreement as amended hereby.



 


[signatures on next page]


 


*        *        *


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date written above.


 





 


	 	COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	Big
    Teams LLC
	 	 
	 	
    By:	/s/ Clay Walker
	 	 	Clay Walker
Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	Address:	7925 Jones Branch Drive
	 	 	McLean, Virginia 22102











	 	PURCHASER:
	 	 
	 	MOKO Social
    Media Limited
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Ian Rodwell
	 	Name:	Ian Rodwell
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	Address:	320 King Street, Suite 202
	 	 	Alexandria, VA 22314
Essential Air Service At Pueblo CO

OST-1999-6S89

January 27, 2014

>.--"Ii.... ,P' ? 8 ,.' L\ c: "4

1I

It has come to the attention of TransportAzumah that several EASmarkets will be experiencing an

interruption in service beginning at the end of this week. The inventory for Pueblo CO is zeroed out in

the Great Lakes reservations system after Friday, January 31, 2014. Service interruptions in EAS

communities tend to destroy the passenger base of the markets involved. This leads to numerous bid

periods in which the community exceeds $200 per passenger in subsidy and puts them under constant

risk of being eliminated from the program.

In order to maintain the passenger base at these communities, TransportAzumah proposes the

implementation of emergency interim bus service. These emergency contracts would be issued under

the Department's discretionary authority for an interim period of three months while Skywest prepares

to start service. TransportAzumah has the ability to implement these services beginning February 1,

2014 using midsized and full sized long distance coaches. During the interim period, there would be no

fare charged on these services.

The following markets would receive emergency interim bus service beginning February 1:

TransportAzumah Emergency Interim Bus Service

Market Hub Raund Trips Per Day 3 Manth Subsidy

Pueblo CO DEN 3 $286,224

TransportAzumah recognizes that this program may require the communities to opt into the alternate

EASprogram for a short period of time. As with past agreements, communities should be aware that

opting into the alternate EASprogram is not permanent. In this situation, the Department could allow

communities to opt into the alternate EASprogram only during the period of air service hiatus. We

believe that three months is sufficient for motivated air carriers to submit a bid to restore air service to

these communities.

Sample bus schedules are provided below. They are subject to change:

Pueblo CO - DEN

Pueblo CO > DEN (Daily)

Pueblo CO SlSa 111Sa 515p

DEN 730a BOp 730p

DEN> Pueblo CO (Daily)

DEN 800a 200p 800p

Pueblo CO 1015a 415p 1015p

In light of the short timeframe available to avoid uninterrupted service, we request expedited

consideration of our request. Due to the length of this contract, we will also need modified payment

arrangements. Please contact us as soon as possible so that we can start on or just after February 1,

2014.

Contact: Joel Anabilah-Azumah, jazumah@transportazumah.com, 347-927-0750
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY BENJAMIN

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-CV-65

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 23) 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on February 8, 2019, submitted a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 23). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its

entirety. Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/17/19 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James A. Fontaine, 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; 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/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                                              
|James A. Fontaine                                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: April 28, 2006