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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,983
<SECURITIES>                                 1,450,830
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,067,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,766,174
<PP&E>                                         156,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,000,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          636,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,777,163
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,000,661
<SALES>                                        630,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               630,054
<CGS>                                          474,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  474,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,596,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,440,304)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,441,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,441,104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.14





 Exhibit 10.14 

NOTE: PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT INDICATED BY [****] ARE SUBJECT TOA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST AND HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS EXHIBIT. COMPLETE,
UNREDACTED COPIES OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS A PART OF THIS COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST. 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 SIDE
LETTER AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Side Letter Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of
the last signature date hereto (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between Biomet 3i, LLC (successor and assignee of Zimmer Dental, Inc.), a Florida limited liability company (“Biomet 3i”), and RTI Surgical,
Inc. (formerly RTI Biologics, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (“RTI”). 
 Recitals 

A. Biomet 3i and RTI are parties to a Side Letter Agreement to Exclusive Distribution Agreement dated as of March 29, 2016 (the
“Side Letter Agreement”). 
 B. Biomet 3i and RTI desire to amend the Side Letter Agreement, subject to and in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment. 
 C. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment
shall have the meanings given to them in the Side Letter Agreement. 
 Agreement 

In consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment, the Side Letter Agreement and the Distribution Agreement, as well as
other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of such consideration being hereby agreed to and acknowledged, Biomet 3i and RTI hereby agree as follows: 

1. DS Territory. Recital B of the Side Letter Agreement is hereby amended to expand the DS Territory to include the [****]. As of the
Amendment Effective Date, the term “DS Territory” shall mean [****]. 
 2. Cut-off
Times. The table in Section 1(b) of the Side Letter Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: 
 [****] 

*All times are stated in the local time of [****]. 

3. Effect of Amendment. Except as specifically amended above, the Side Letter Agreement and the Distribution Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 4. Applicable Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to its choice of law rules. 













 NOTE: PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT INDICATED BY [****] ARE SUBJECT TOA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST AND HAVE
BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS EXHIBIT. COMPLETE, UNREDACTED COPIES OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS A PART OF THIS COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST. 

 


*                *       
         * 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Amendment to be executed by its
respective duly authorized representative as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

			
	RTI SURGICAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert P. Jordheim
	
	Name: Robert P. Jordheim
	
	Title: Executive Vice President & CFO


 
			
		
	Date:	 	November 4, 2016


  

			
	BIOMET 3i, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ David Josza


 
			
		
	Name:	 	David Josza


 
			
		
	Title:	 	General Manager, Dental


 
			
		
	Date:	 	November 7, 2016



  
 -2-
Climate Change:

Engagement on all Levels

Curt Spalding

August 14., 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1





“. . . those who claim the science is unsettled or action 

is too costly are simply trying to ignore the problem . . .”

-Henry M. Paulson Jr.


“Climate change ... can add to the challenges of global instability, 

hunger, poverty, and conflict.”

-Chuck Hagel, United States Defense Secretary 

INCREASE IN EXTREME PRECIPITATION



Mitigation:

Emissions Reduction

Reducing Carbon Pollution Accelerating Clean Energy
The Clean Power Plan Proposal Addresses the Largest Source of 

Green House Gas Emissions in the U.S.

17
State 2012 Fossil Emission 

Rate1

Interim Goal (2020 -

2029 average)2

Final Goal (2030 and 

thereafter)2

Connecticut 844 597 540

Maine 873 393 378

Massachusetts 1,001 655 576

New Hampshire 1,119 546 486

Rhode Island 918 822 782
Clean Power Plan focuses on four building 

blocks as strategies for states to achieve 

reductions goals
Efficiency 

Improvements

Dispatch changes 

to existing natural 

gas combined 

cycle (CC)

Renewable Energy

Certain Nuclear

Demand-side 

energy efficiency 

programs

Strategy EPA used to calculate the state goal
States and Communities with Programs that Reduce Carbon Pollution

21
8/27/2014

22%

12%

-20%

-71%

-93%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New England GDP Total Generation CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions

Data Sources: 2012 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions 

Report, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

New England Economic Growth and ISO New England System Emissions
23

Transportation
All of the Above Energy Strategy: Promoting Sustainable Approaches

EPA Programs that are reducing our carbon footprint across sectors while promoting sustainability

• SMARTWAY: Freight Transportation

• ENERGY STAR

• GREEN CHILL

• FOOD RECOVERY CHALLENGE


27 27

Dynamics

Carriers:

• Save fuel & money

• Attain preferred status with 

shippers

• Earn recognition

EPA:

• Provide platform & 

tools

• Bring agencies & 

industry together

• Show success

Shippers:

• Choose efficient carriers

• Optimize mode choice

• Shrink carbon foot print

• Earn recognition

Logistics:

• Help both

• Earn recognition




Boston Harbor - MWRA

Slide 4 getty images

Slide 6 chart source: IPCC

Slide 9 by Bert Kaufmann, 

Slide 28 MWRA Deer Island http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawhead/4376312654/

Slide 25 www.europeanceo.com
#### National Mortgage Corporation et al., Respondents, *v.*James R. Deering, Appellant.

Argued January 11, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*578
      *James R. Deering,*appellant, in person.

*Edward J. McGratty, Jr.,*and *Ralph M. Carson*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### Letsie BASS Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF Defendant Laurence B. Alexander, In His Capacity as Chancellor, UAPB (originally named as Calvin Johnson); Elbert Bennett, in His Capacity as Director of Student Affairs, UAPB; University of Arkansas System, Through its Board of Trustees, Donald R. Bobbitt, President Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-4261

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 26, 2017

Filed: August 1, 2017

Letsie Bass, Pro Se

JoAnn C. Maxey, University of Arkansas, Office of General Counsel, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Letsie Bass appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her employment discrimina*459tion complaint. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Having conducted a thorough review, this court concludes that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. *See Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc.,*774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo).

The judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District *459of Arkansas.
Exhibit 33

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned,  Peter  Mateja,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  of  Smart  Energy
Solutions,  Inc.,  Inc. (the  "Company")  and Edward  Braniff,  Chief  Financial
Officer of the Company,  certify,  under the  standards set forth and solely for
the  purposes  of 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of the Company for the year ended  December 31, 2004 fully  complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934 and  information  contained  in that Form 10-KSB  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April 6, 2006





/s/ Peter Mateja
Peter Mateja
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Edward Braniff
Edward Braniff
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy L. CARDOSO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10405

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 12, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 4, 2017

Matthew Craig Thuesen, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas J. Beevers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Mark W, Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1.Since Cardoso’s original crime involved possession of child pornography downloaded from the Internet, the supervised release condition restricting his access to the Internet was a reasonable measure “ ‘to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant’ and ‘to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.’ ” United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) *&*(Q).

2. Revocation of supervised release must be based on “credible evidence the releasee actually violated the terms of supervised release.” United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008). Cardo-so’s supervised release conditions expressly required him to follow his probation officer’s instructions. The officer informed him when she intended to conduct a home inspection, but Cardoso was not present, thus violating his release condition. Lesson learned.

3. Similarly, by frequenting the Fair Oaks house without informing his probation officer, Cardoso failed to follow the officer’s instructions that any residence be approved in advance. Ditto.

4.., A supervised release condition forbidding a releasee to “possess any sexually stimulating or sexually oriented material as deemed inappropriate by [his] probation officer and/or treatment staff,” United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original), does not violate the First Amendment. The district court thus did not err in imposing special release condition 12, which was more narrowly tailored. However, since the oral pronouncement of Cardoso’s release conditions differed from the written judgment, we vacate the district court’s judgment so that the written judgment may be conformed to the oral pronouncement. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 668 (9th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Cardtrend International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas CL Wong, Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 5th day of June, 2009.

THOMAS CL WONGThomas CL WongChief Financial Officer














---
### Results

Orange or red highlights indicate that the EPA criteria have been exceeded.

Black

- and

- white version

Persistence Bioaccumulation Toxicity



### 1464989

- 16

- 9 4,7

- Methano

- 1H

- indene

- 1

- propanal, octahydro

PBT Profiler Estimate = PB T

Media Half

- Life

(days) Percent in

Each Medium BCF Fish

Ch V

(mg/l)

Water 15 22% 95 0.15

Soil 30 77%

Sediment 140 0%

Air 0.42 1%

P2 Consider ations and more information

.

Based on its structure, this chemical may belong to the

Aldehydes (Environmental Toxicity) category. Members of this

category may have potential concerns shown. More

information and category definitions

.



### 1467039

- 69

- 5 4,7

- Methano

- 1H

- indene

- 2

- propanal, octahydro

PBT Profiler Estimate = PB T

Media Half

- Life

(days) Percent in

Each Medium BCF Fish

ChV

(mg/l)

Water 15 22% 95 0.15

Soil 30 77%

Sediment 140 0%

Air 0.42 1%P2 Considerations and more information

.

Based on its structure, this chemical may belong to the

Aldehydes (Environmental Toxicity) category. Members of this

category may have potential concerns shown. More

information and category definitions

.

The PBT Profiler Results are available for 20 minutes

NOTE: The estimation modules used by the PBT Profiler have been updated.

Some chemi cals may produce different profiles then in prior versions.

For a full list of updates see the "What's new" section.

Developed by the Environmental Health Analysis Center under contract to the Office of

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Computer Resources Donated by SRC, Inc. Ver 2.000 Last Updated September 4, 2012
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-1519

MEGAN McLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

BOSTON HARBOR CRUISE LINES, INC.,; 

MODERN CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this court, issued August 17, 2005,

should be amended as follows:

On cover sheet: "Brien E. Lewis" is replaced with

"Brian E. Lewis"

On cover sheet: After "Carol B. Feinberg," insert

"Attorney, Office of the Solicitor,"

On page 2, line 6: Insert period after "Inc" so that

"Boston Harbor Cruise Lines, Inc" becomes "Boston Harbor

Cruise Lines, Inc."

On page 9, line 5: Abbreviate "United States" to "U.S."
#### Burdett, Smith & Co. v. Woodworth & Co. et al.; Michigan Stove Co. v. The Same.

Chattel mortgage: fraud: evidence to support finding of court.

*Appeal from Page Circuit Court.*

Saturday, March 5, 1887.

These are actions at law. They involve the validity of a chattel mortgage upon a stock of hardware. The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendant Woodworth, and levied attachments upon the property. The defendant Mather asserted title to the goods under a chattel1 mortgage made by Wood-worth to him. Pending the action, Mather assigned the mortgage to the Grinnell Barb Wire Co., and it intervened and assumed the place of Mathei *754as a party to the action. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the mortgage was fraudulent as to the creditors of Woodworth. This was the issue which was tried. The trial was had to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

*8. G. McPherrin,*for appellants.

*N. B. Moore, 8. B. Jennings*and *Haines, Lyman & Howell,*for appellees.

Rothrock, J.

There is but one error assigned and argued. It presents the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. We have carefully examined the evidence, and have reached the conclusion that we cannot disturb the judgment. It is not necessary to set out the evidence. It is sufficient to say that, applying the same rule to the judgment which is applied by this court to the verdict of a jury, the judgment finds support in the evidence. It does not appear without conflict th at the mortgage was fraudulent. It is to be remembered that we are not required to try the cause anew in this court.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6564 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6564

To allow the Farm Credit Administration the option to examine low-risk 
        Farm Credit System institutions under a 24-month cycle.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2023

 Ms. Spanberger (for herself and Mr. LaMalfa) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow the Farm Credit Administration the option to examine low-risk 
        Farm Credit System institutions under a 24-month cycle.

    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 ``Farm Credit Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION OPTION TO EXAMINE LOW RISK FARM 
              CREDIT SYSTEM INSTITUTIONS ON A 24-MONTH CYCLE.

    (a) In General.--Section 5.19(a) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 
U.S.C. 2254(a)) is amended in the 1st sentence--
            (1) by striking ``in no event'' and inserting ``not''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, except that the Farm Credit 
        Administration, in its sole discretion, may extend the time 
        period between mandatory examinations of institutions deemed by 
        the Farm Credit Administration to be low-risk institutions to 
        not more than 24 months'' before the period.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 1, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
#### Milton PARNESS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 15866.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 30, 1966.

Decided Oct. 12, 1966.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 13, 1967.

See 87 S.Ct. 882.

See also 3 Cir., 331 F.2d 703.

Milton Parness, pro se.

David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert A. Baime, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee.

Before HASTIE, SMITH and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by a federal prisoner from the denial of his motion, made under section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, to vacate and correct his sentence1 on the ground that it had been based upon false information contained in a presentence report.

The sentencing judge also heard and denied the present motion. In doing so he expressly found that the assertions challenged as false had not “affected * * * [his] judgment as to the sentence which should be imposed” and that, upon present reconsideration of all relevant and proper information and circumstances, the sentence was appropriate and should stand.2

These findings are unimpeached. Since the challenged matter played no *328part in the judge's original determination of an appropriate sentence or in his subsequent reaffirmation of it, the prisoner’s complaint is groundless.

The order appealed from will be affirmed.

1

. Conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court. 331 F.2d 703, cert. denied 377 U.S. 993, 84 S.Ct. 1919, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045.

2

. On an earlier motion, the court had reduced the original term of imprisonment from five years to four.