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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the forty weeks ended January 4,
2000 included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000  <F1>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-04-2000
<CASH>                                          28,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  243,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,500
<INVENTORY>                                     78,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               422,400
<PP&E>                                       1,450,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 704,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,635,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          296,500
<BONDS>                                        151,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                     656,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,635,200
<SALES>                                      1,561,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,561,800
<CGS>                                          864,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  864,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  as presented,
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per
share data.
</FN>


</TABLE>
SCWC-11-0000814

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHONG HUNG HAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-11-0000814; CR. NO. 10-1-1098)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on

December 31, 2012 by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Chong Hung

Han is hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be

held in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 14, 2013.

Evan S. Tokunaga, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

 /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

 /s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0000814

14-FEB-2013

09:48 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Esvin Danilo VASQUEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Rodemilio Vasquez-Sanchez, also known as Marvin Danilo Vasquez-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40306 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Esvin Danilo Vasquez-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Esvin Danilo Vasquez-Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vasquez-Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Eugene H. MATHISON Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Defendant-Appellee Eugene H. Mathison Plaintif-Appellant v. United States of America Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4285, No. 16-4286

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Filed: July 26, 2017

Eugene H. Mathison, Pro Se

Stephanie Carlson Bengford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant-Appellee

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. '

In these consolidated cases, Eugene Ma-thison appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his petitions for coram nobis relief. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied relief. See United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review; coram nobis writ should be granted only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice and to correct errors of most fundamental character); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir. 1966) (per curiam) (coram nobis petitioner not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal or in 28 U.S.C. § 2256 motion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 662 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 662

 To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 to 
  improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2023

    Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida (for himself and Ms. Wasserman 
   Schultz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 to 
  improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Block Grant Assistance Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2023 
              AMENDMENT.

    Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
2023 (division N of Public Law 117-328), is amended, in the matter 
under the heading ``Office of the Secretary'' under the heading 
``Processing, Research and Marketing'' under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL 
PROGRAMS'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'', by 
inserting ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may 
provide assistance for losses described under this heading in this Act 
in the form of block grants to eligible States and territories'' before 
the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
#### Paul Alec MONJE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-55421

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*988Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Paul Alec Monje, Pro Se

Donald E. Bradley, Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Trans Union, LLC

Michael R. Pfeifer, Pfeifer <& de la Mora, LLP, Orange, CA, for Defendant-Appellee American General Finance

Tamar Gabriel, David J, Kaminski, Carlson *&*Messer LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Wendy C. Krog, Esquire, Ropers, Maje-ski, Kohn & Bentley, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Chase Bank USA, N.A.

Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Alec Monje appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his action, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as to Equifax. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1268, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Monje’s action without prejudice as to Equifax because Monje failed to respond to an order to show cause why the action as to Equifax should not be dismissed, despite a warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his action. *See id.*at 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(setting forth factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order and holding that the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Monje’s motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing Monje’s action without prejudice as to Equifax because Monje did not demonstrate any basis for reconsideration. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1256, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for granting motion for reconsideration).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Grace George, Respondent, *v.*Owners Trucking Corporation et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 1, 1943;

decided March 11, 1943.

*James B. McKenna*for motion.

*Clayton M. Smith*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
# ms-iH ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 01-13-00907-CR 

## OFFENSE: 22.01 (Assault) Randy Mazuera v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Co Crim Ct at Law No 1 DATE: 09/25/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1870669



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Randy Mazuera v.TheState of STYLE: Texas 

# APPZUAUT^S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

## *R€FMfh DATE: 

# oT-lovJw/r JUDGE: {mCU/U^^l^ CCA#: 

# MS&'l* CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Exhibit 10.5


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(this “Agreement”), is entered into as of the 17th day of May 2012 (the “Effective Date”) by and between
HAROLD F. ZAGUNIS (the “Executive”) and REDWOOD TRUST, INC., a Maryland Corporation (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company
have entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of March 31, 2009 (as subsequently amended as of February
24, 2011, the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company
desire to enter into this Agreement for purposes of amending the Employment Agreement as set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy which is hereby acknowledged, the Executive and the Company hereby agree that the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended as follows effective upon the Effective Date:  


 


	 	(1)	Section 1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to replace each occurrence of the phrase “Chief Risk Officer” therein with “Managing Director”.


 


Except as hereby specifically amended or
modified, the terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended by this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.  This
Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in two counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same agreement.  This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State
of California (without regard to conflict of law principles).

 


[Signature Page Follows]


 



    	-1-



    	 



    

  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and the Executive has executed this Agreement, as of the
date first above written.


 


	REDWOOD TRUST, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	
         

        By:  
	
         

        /s/ Martin S. Hughes
	 
	 	Name: Martin S. Hughes	 
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	
         

        HAROLD F. ZAGUNIS
	 
	
         

         
	 
	 	/s/ Harold F. Zagunis	 


 




 



    	-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6519 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6519

  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban the use of 
  intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances in 
                   cosmetics, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2023

Mrs. Dingell (for herself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Ms. Kuster) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban the use of 
  intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances in 
                   cosmetics, and for other purposes.

    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 ``No PFAS in Cosmetics Act''.

SEC. 2. BAN ON PERFLUOROALKYL OR POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES.

    (a) Adulteration.--Section 601 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 361) is amended by adding after paragraph (g) 
(as added by section 3503(a)(2) of division FF of Public Law 117-328) 
the following:
    ``(h)(1) If it contains an intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or 
polyfluoroalkyl substance.
    ``(2) In this paragraph:
            ``(A) The term `perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl 
        substance' means a substance in a class of fluorinated organic 
        chemicals--
                    ``(i) that is man-made; and
                    ``(ii) has at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon 
                atom.
            ``(B) The term `intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or 
        polyfluoroalkyl substance' means a perfluoroalkyl or 
        polyfluoroalkyl substance that--
                    ``(i) has been intentionally added by a 
                manufacturer or supplier to an ingredient, raw 
                material, product, or packaging and has a functional or 
                technical effect on the product or packaging; or
                    ``(ii) is an intentional breakdown product of an 
                added chemical.''.
    (b) Applicability.--Section 601(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a), shall apply beginning on 
January 1, 2025.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3506 of the Modernization of 
Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (subtitle E of title III of division 
FF of Public Law 117-328) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.3




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration  Statement No.
333-114496,  333-121039,  and  333-128547  on Form  S-3 and No.  333-116014  and
333-122716  on Form S-8 of Gasco  Energy,  Inc.  ("Gasco") of our reports  dated
March 1, 2006 relating to our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements
and internal control over financial  reporting,  included in and incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gasco for the year ended December
31, 2005.




HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 1, 2006
ex104.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


     This amended Executive Employment Agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) is executed on May 16, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) and is between Vidaroo Corp, a Nevada Corp. (the “Company”) and Mark Argenti (the “Officer”).


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Officer originally entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) dated May 1, 2008 that was subsequently amended on 11/6/08, and 11/10/09 (the “Amendments”).


 


WHEREAS, the Officer desires to accept a continued role as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer with the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby re-affirm the Agreement and Amendments.  Company and Officer agree to the following further amendments as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Term of Employment. The period of employment of Officer by the Company under the Agreement (the Employment Period) shall be deemed to have commenced on the April 1, 2012 and shall continue until March 31, 2015, unless terminated sooner under Section 6 of the Agreement.







 



	
2.  

	
Compensation.







 


(a)           Salary. The Company shall pay to Officer a base salary of $120,000 per year, plus any bonuses and/or stock options as granted under this and previous agreements or those granted from time to time in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors.  Should Company wish to provide Salary in the form of Stock, Company and officer, upon mutual agreement, may agree to substitute Common Stock at a conversion price of $0.02/share.


 


(b)           Health Insurance. As additional compensation for the Officer, the Company shall provide or maintain the medical and health insurance benefits on the same terms and conditions as are made available to all employees of the Company generally.


 


(c)           Stock Options. The Company hereby reaffirms previously issued stock Options to Officer and is providing/affirming additional Stock Options all to be provided at an exercise price of $0.05, as further indicated in the table below.


 



	
Historical Award:


 

	  	  
	  	
Date of award

	
Number of shares

	
Status

	  
	  	
5/1/08

	
666,667

	
Vested

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Current contractual award:

	  	  
	  	
5/16/12

	
2,000,000

	
Vested

	  
	  	
5/16/12

	
1,500,000

	
Vests ratably over contract period

	  





 


Upon vesting these Options shall be exercisable at anytime by the Holder as further described in the executed Vidaroo Corporation Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement.


 


(d)           Performance incentive:  Officer shall be compensated for the performance of the Production services business unit (“Business Unit”).  Officer shall receive Compensation equivalent to 10% of the Gross Margin of the business unit.  Such Compensation shall be due and payable in cash.  Should the Company be unable to pay said Incentive in cash, Company may compensate Officer in Stock valued at $0.02 issued at mutual agreement between Company and Officer.


 



	Vidaroo Corp.  	 	Officer:	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:/s/Thomas Moreland 	 	/s/Mark Argenti
exhibit10_6.htm






Exhibit 10.6







April 17, 2012







MarkIanni












Dear Mark:







The 2012 bonus plan reflects the goals for our company this coming year.  Your bonus is based on pre-tax profit for the company in 2012.








	
35.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$               1


	
42.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$1,000,000


	
50.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$2,000,000


	
62.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$3,000,000


	
75.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$4,000,000












In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, you meet the goals outlined in the document provided to you separately and the company makes a pre-tax profit of at least $1.







I will send a quarterly update in conjunction with our earnings announcement to update you on the performance of the company versus the bonus plan.







The 2012 bonus period covers the fiscal months of February 2012 through January 2013.  You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time the bonus is paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.







Sincerely,






















Peter Edison


ss
From: Charles Ball [mailto:CBall@emissionsandsilencers.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:28 PM To: nelson.brad@ecrweb.com Subject: Oxidation catalyst quote

Brad, here is a general price quotation for an oxidation silencer/converter. The price is based on a standard horizontal silencer/converter for a 500hp engine, so less the horse power the smaller the silencer/converter and the lower the silencer/converter price. If you have any other question, contact me at anytime.

"Affordable and efficient emission reduction solutions" www.emissionsandsilencers.com

Charles Ball Engineering Manager cball@emissionsandsilencers.com 20322 Hufsmith-Kohrville Rd. Tomball, TX 77375 Office: 832-559-6505 Cell: 313-920-5099
#### SEVIER VAOIA WIGHTMAN

No. 4-1929

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

February 18, 1929

JAMES W. FOXALL, *American Judge*of the High Court; LUTU, *Native Judge*of the High Court; and [sic], President of the High Court

*416DECREE

And now, February eighteenth, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, the Court having fully considered the petition of Sevier Vaoia Wightman, do decree that Sevier Vaoia Wightman, who for some years past has been known as Sevier Vaoia Stubbs, be known in the future by his own name, Sevier Vaoia Wightman, and do further order that notice of this decree be published for four successive weeks at the Administration Building, Fagatoga, [sic] Tutuila, American Samoa and in the Fa’atonu.