alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.6

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

                        MANTECH INTERNATIONAL 401(k) PLAN

         FIRST AMENDMENT to the ManTech International 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"),
by ManTech International Corporation (the "Company").

         The Company maintains the Plan, effective as of January 1, 1993, and
amended and restated effective October 1, 1998.  The Company  has the power to
amend the Plan and now wishes to do so.

         NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

I.       Section 1.14 of the Plan is amended by inserting the following sentence
at the end of the Section:

         As of January 1, 1999, the corporation listed on Exhibit C has adopted
         the Plan and is an Employer. As of January 1, 2000, the corporation
         listed on Exhibit D has adopted the Plan and is an Employer.

II.      Section 13.1(a) of the Plan is amended by inserting the following
sentence at the end of the Section:

         The Trustee may receive distributions from the ManTech International
         Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ManTech ESOP") pursuant
         to Section 6.2 of the ManTech ESOP.

III.     The following new Exhibit C is added after Exhibit B to the Plan:


                          EXHIBIT C - RELATED COMPANIES

         The following company is a Related Company under the Plan:

ManTech Advanced Development Group

<PAGE>

IV.      The following new Exhibit D is added after Exhibit C to the Plan:

                          EXHIBIT D - RELATED COMPANIES

         The following company is a Related Company under the Plan:

ManTech Solutions & Technology Corporation

V.       In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.

                                    * * * * *

         To record the adoption of this Agreement as set forth above, the
Company has caused this document to be signed on this ____ day of ____________,
_____.

                                              MANTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


                                              BY:_______________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio GASTELUM-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50097

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Francis Anthony DiGiacco, Ajay Krish-namurthy, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael L. Crowley, Attorney, Crowley Law Group, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio Gastelum-Juarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gastelum-Juarez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Contrary to Gastelum-Juarez’s claim, the district court considered the five factors under the amended Guideline. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (the district court need not “tick off’ the factors to show that it has considered them). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Gastelum-Juarez’s actions leading up to the offense, the quantity of methamphetamine at issue, and his significant compensation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); *Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d at 1170. That Gastelum-Juarez may have been less culpable than the organizer of *507the smuggling enterprise did not show that he was entitled to the adjustment. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A) (adjustment applies to a defendant who is substantially less culpable than the “average” participant in the offense).

We grant Gastelum-Juarez’s request to take judicial notice.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 15.1

ACCOUNTANTS' LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM
FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The Board of Directors
PowerCerv Corporation

We have reviewed, in
accordance with standards established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, the unaudited interim financial
information of PowerCerv Corporation for the three-month period ended
March 31, 2001, as indicated in our report dated April 20, 2001;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report
referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001 is incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-3960, 333-50621 and 333-90827) pertaining to the PowerCerv
Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-90825)
pertaining to Stock Option Agreements.

We also are aware that the
aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities
Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ Grant Thornton, LLP

Tampa, Florida
April 20, 2001
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOU.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Elephant
Glass Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for
the three months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Lin Tan, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the
Company.

July 15, 2011

/s/ Lin TanLin Tan President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Offocer
 (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Chief Accounting
Officer)

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 33859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13248]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

[MMAA104000]

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Geological and Geophysical 
Exploration Activities in the Gulf of Mexico; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Intent; Notice of Scoping Meetings; and Request for 
Scoping Comments; Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2013, BOEM published a document in the Federal 
Register (78 FR 27427) entitled ``Outer Continental Shelf Geological 
and Geophysical Exploration Activities in the Gulf of Mexico.'' This 
notice corrects the date for closing of the public comment period, as 
previously published.

DATES: Effective immediately, comments should be submitted no later 
than July 9, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on this notice or the 
public scoping meetings, contact Ms. Beth Nord, BOEM, Gulf of Mexico 
OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (GM 623E), New Orleans, 
Louisiana 70123-2394, telephone (504) 736-2995. For information on 
BOEM's policies associated with this notice, contact Mr. Gary Goeke, 
Section Chief, Regional Assessment Section, Office of Environment (GM 
623E), BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, telephone (504) 736-3233. For 
information on the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) policies 
associated with this notice, contact Mr. Howard Goldstein, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, 
telephone (301) 427-8401.

    Dated: May 28, 2013.
Tommy P. Beaudreau,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2013-13248 Filed 6-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 06/06-0349]

Notice is hereby given that Main Street Capital III, L.P., 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77056, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with a financing involving small concern Charps, LLC located at 453 Tower St. NW, Clearbrook, MN 56634, provided notice of this transaction to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) pursuant to the Regulations found at 13 CFR 107.730-13 CFR 107.730—Financings which constitute conflicts of interests. Charps, LLC is an Associate of Main Street Capital III, L.P. because Associate Main Street Equity Investment, Inc. owns a greater than ten percent interest in the Charps, LLC.

This financing is pursuant to § 107.730(f) of the Regulations because Main Street Capital III, L.P.'s parent corporation, Main Street Capital Corporation, is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and received an exemption from the Securities and Exchange Commission for the transaction and fulfilled its requirement to notify SBA.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

U.S. Small Business Administration.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2022-06218 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Jeff W. COX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FULL SERVICE AUTO PARTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-50456 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 14, 2017

Robert Chris Pittard, Forte *&*Pittard, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Donna Kay McElroy, Dykema Cox Smith, San Antonio, TX, Elizabeth Anne Voss, Esq., Dykema Cox Smith, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed because the record will not support a claim for relief. The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant in 2013, claiming discrimination of age and disability and because of retaliation for exercising his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, he suffered a demotion in employment without receiving reasonable accommodation.

Plaintiff testified that he had suffered a heart attack in 2012 and admitted that he had been completely unable to work and would never be able to work in any capacity. Summary Judgment was entered against Plaintiff on July 9, 2015. Plaintiff did not appeal but this new lawsuit was filed the following year alleging the very same legal claims. His distinction is that the first claim was about a demotion and now it is about his removal from employment rolls by Defendant in 2015.

With his own testimony and the claims rejected by the prior judgment, he has no legal claim standing.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. 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.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 07022 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 07022\07022_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07022\07022_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07022\07022_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07022\07022_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07022\07022_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07022\07022_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07022\07022_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07022\07022_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07022\Certification Statement Plant ID 07022.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 07022\Supporting Documents\07022_coal pile runoff ponds.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07022\Supporting Documents\07022_USEPA ICR Wastewater Attachments Nearman Creek Power Station.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 62 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 62

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Navy 
should name the first of the fleet of the new attack submarines of the 
                       Navy the ``South Dakota''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 1996

 Mr. Pressler submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Navy 
should name the first of the fleet of the new attack submarines of the 
                       Navy the ``South Dakota''.

Whereas the battleship South Dakota (BB-57) was commissioned on March 20, 1942, 
        and was originally scheduled to host the surrender of Japan in World War 
        II;
Whereas the battleship South Dakota (BB-57) quickly became the flagship of 
        Admiral Chester W. Nimitz's 3d Fleet and was renowned as the famous 
        Battleship ``X'';
Whereas the battleship South Dakota (BB-57) was one of the greatest and most 
        decorated battleships of World War II, earning the Navy Unit 
        commendation, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with 13 battle stars, 
        the World War II Victory Medal, and the Navy Occupation Service Medal;
Whereas on January 31, 1947, after only 5 years of service, the battleship South 
        Dakota (BB-57) was decommissioned and placed in reserve;
Whereas during its 5 years of dutiful service, the crew of the battleship South 
        Dakota (BB-57) demonstrated both dedication and courage in their efforts 
        to preserve the security of the United States and protect the freedoms 
        of all Americans; and
Whereas it is entirely appropriate to have the first of the fleet of the new 
        attack submarines of the Navy named the ``South Dakota'' in order to 
        honor the courage and commitment of the brave crew of the battleship 
        South Dakota (BB-57), and to serve as a fitting tribute to one of 
        America's truly great battleships: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Navy 
should name the first of the fleet of the new attack submarines of the 
Navy the ``South Dakota''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         822,363
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  530,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (225,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    888,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,351,909
<PP&E>                                         1,589,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (580,328)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,899,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          665,831
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,103,805
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,916,847)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,899,514
<SALES>                                        366,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               366,126
<CGS>                                          164,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  670,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (440,356)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (440,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (439,556)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.07)


</TABLE>
#### Christopher Lee JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; Financials; Department of State; Goldman Sachs; JP Morgan Chase; Citigroup; Morgan Stanley; U.S. Treasury Department; Loyd Blank Fien; Jamie Diamon; James Gorman; U.S. Federal Reserve, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2152

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Christopher Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee Johnson appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action without prejudice and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Johnson v. Dept of Justice,*No. 6:17-cv-01844-MGL (D.S.C. Aug! 31 *&*Sept. 18, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane SCHMUTTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-2176

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued March 1, 2017

Decided January 23, 2018

James M, Warden, Attorney, Bob Wood, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Sara J. Varner, Attorney, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellant

*376Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge,* DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

*

 Circuit Judge Posner participated in the oral argument in this case but retired on September 2, 2017 and did not participate in the decision of this appeal. The appeal is being resolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

ORDER

Defendant-appellant Shane Schmutte pled guilty to possessing a gun as a felon. The district court found that Schmutte had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of fifteen years in prison. *See*18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The issue in this appeal is whether Schmutte’s prior Indiana conviction for Class B burglary should count as a violent felony under the Act. To decide this issue, we must apply the categorical method; the details of Schmutte’s actual crime do not matter. See, e.g., *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).

Class B burglary under Indiana law at the time Schmutte was convicted in 2002 required proof that he broke and entered the building or structure of another person with intent to commit a felony in it, and either that he committed the crime while armed with a deadly weapon or that the building or structure was a dwelling or a structure used for religious worship. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1) (2002) (Indiana recodi-fied its criminal statutes in 2014). The decisive issue is whether Class B burglary qualifies as “generic” burglary under the Armed Career Criminal Act, as interpreted in *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). *Taylor*held that “generic” burglary is defined as “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143.

We recently held that a conviction for Indiana Class B burglary is categorically a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. *United States v. Foster,*877 F.3d 343 (7th Cir. 2017). *Foster*in turn followed *United States v. Perry,*862 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2017), in which we held that the lesser included offense of Class C burglary under Indiana law also qualifies as a violent felony under the Act. The holding and reasoning of *Foster*apply to appellant Schmutte in this case. He qualifies as an armed career criminal under the act, and the district court properly imposed the mandatory minimum sentence. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.