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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM (Identify specific financial statements) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         875,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,256,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,131,925
<PP&E>                                      29,850,438
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,503,592)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,793,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,230,249
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           523
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,552,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,793,675
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,672,204
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,439,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,314,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             366,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                478,321
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            478,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                       Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 11, 2002

                           FRIEDE GOLDMAN HALTER, INC.
                            (AS DEBTOR IN POSSESSION)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

<TABLE>
<S>                                               <C>                                  <C>
         Mississippi                              0-22595                              72-1362492
(State or other jurisdiction of            (Commission File Number)        (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 incorporation or organization)
</TABLE>

                          13085 Industrial Seaway Road
                           Gulfport, Mississippi 39503
                              (Address of principal
                                executive offices
                                  and zip code)

                                 (228) 896-0029
                         (Registrant's telephone number,
                              including area code)




<PAGE>

Item 2. Disposition of Assets

     On May 24, 2002, the Board of Directors of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc.
(FGH: FGHLQ) announced that United Heavy B.V., a division of United Heavy
Machinery, had purchased the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering business
unit, Friede & Goldman Ltd., from Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. (OTCBB: FGHLQ)
for a sum of $15 million.

     For additional information, reference is made to the Press Release dated
May 24, 2002, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit hereto.

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits

        (c)

        Exhibit 99.1      Press Release of Registrant dated May 24, 2002

                                       2
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                FRIEDE GOLDMAN HALTER, INC.

Date: June 11, 2002

                                By: /s/ T. Jay Collins
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   T. Jay Collins
                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                       3
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


         Exhibit No.              Description
         -----------              -----------

         *99.1                    Press Release of Registrant dated May 24, 2002



-------------------
* Filed herewith.

                                       4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6650

ODELL REED, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JULIA LAFOON, Nurse at Brunswick Correctional

Center; she is sued in her individual and

official capacity; ALVIN E. HARRIS, Doctor at

Brunswick Correctional Center; he is sued in

his individual and official capacity; K.

RUNION, Warden at Brunswick Correctional

Center; he is sued in his individual and

official capacity; FRED SCHILLING, Health

Service Director for Virginia Department of

Corrections; he is sued in his individual and

official capacity; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director

for the Virginia Department of Corrections; he

is sued in his individual and official

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00186-CMH)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Odell Reed, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Odell Reed, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2000), for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Reed v. Lafoon, No. 1:07-cv-00186-CMH (E.D. Va.

filed Mar. 28, 2007 & entered Apr. 2, 2007). We deny Reed’s motion

to submit new evidence and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of US Unwired Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2002
relating to the financial statements of IWO Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries,
which appears in the Current Report on Form 8-K of US Unwired Inc. dated
April 1, 2002. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.

                                /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Albany, New York
November 11, 2002
#### IN RE: Erwin SCHOLLMAYER, Appellant

2017-1574

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 12, 2018

Douglas Alan Robinson, Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, St. Louis, MO, argued for appellant. Also represented by Matthew L. Cutler, Leanne M. Rakers.

Mai-Trang Due Dang, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Sarah E. Craven, Thomas W. Krause.

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
pbsv_ex104.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


AMENDMENT TO


 


 



  PHARMA-BIO SERV, INC.




 


 



  2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan




 


 


WHEREAS, Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. (the “Company”) currently maintains and sponsors the Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and


 


 


WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan provides that the Board may amend the Plan from time to time; and


 


 


WHEREAS, the Board has determined it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth herein; and


 


 


NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2014, the following amendment to the Plan is hereby adopted:


 


 


1.           Section 4(b) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“On each 10th day of January of each year, commencing with the 2014 calendar year, each person who is an Independent Director on such date shall automatically be granted a Non-Qualified Stock Option to purchase twenty thousand (20,000) shares of Stock (or such lesser number of shares of Stock as remain available for grant at such date under the Plan, divided by the number of Independent Directors at such date).  Such Stock Options shall be exercisable at a price per share equal to the greater of the Fair Market Value on the date of grant or the par value of one share of Stock.  The Non-Qualified Stock Options granted pursuant to this Section 4(b) and pursuant to Sections 4(c) and 4(d) of the Plan shall become exercisable cumulatively as to fifty percent (50%) of the shares subject thereto six months from the date of grant and as to the remaining fifty percent (50%), eighteen months from the date of grant, and shall expire on the earlier of (i) five years from the date of grant, or (ii) seven (7) months from the date such Independent Director ceases to be a director if such Independent Director ceases to be a director other than as a result of his death or Disability.  The provisions of this Section 4(b) and said Section 4(c) may not be amended more than one (1) time in any six (6) month period other than to comply with changes in the Code or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) or the rules thereunder.”


 


2.           Except as modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain valid and in full force and effect.


 







 


[Signatures on the Next Page]


 







 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has executed this instrument as of the 14th day of March 2014, on behalf of the Company.


 




	 	

PHARMA-BIO SERV, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Pedro J. Lasanta	 
	 	 	Name: Pedro J. Lasanta 	 
	 	 	Title: (Principal financial and accounting officer)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 18025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06544]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-7062-N-04]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration, Privacy 
Office, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of a rescindment of a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as 
amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is 
issuing a public notice of its intent to rescind the Director to Chief 
Technology Officer: Digital Identity and Access Management System 
(DIAMS).

DATES: Effective date: October 10, 2021--[Federal Register: Privacy Act 
of 1974; Notice of an Updated System of Records].

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number HUD-
2014-23117 by one of the following methods:
    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
    Fax: (202) 619-8365.
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#780f0f0f56080a110e191b0138100d1c561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="572020207927253e2136342e173f223379303821">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Mail: Attention: Privacy Office; LaDonne White, Chief Privacy 
Officer, The Executive Secretariat, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139, 
Washington, DC 20410-0001.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be 
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. including any 
personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ladonne White, Chief Privacy Officer, 
The Privacy Office, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 
20410-0001; telephone number 202-708-3054 (this is not a toll-free 
number). Individuals who are hearing- or speech-impaired may access 
this telephone number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 
800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DIAMS does not directly collect PII. The 
information DIAMS uses is covered under the government-wide SORN GSA/
GOVT-7 and therefore does not require a separate SORN.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Digital Identity and Access Management System (DIAMS)--OCIO/QN.01.

HISTORY:
    77 FR 41996, (July 17, 2012).

Ladonne White,
Departmental Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-06544 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28668]

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Under Title VII

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Local Union Report (EEO-3): Cancellation of hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commission is cancelling the 
public hearing on the above proposed information collection--extension 
with change: the Local Union Report (EEO-3). (79 FR 51161, August 27, 
2014). No requests to present oral testimony at a hearing concerning 
the information collection were received from the public. Therefore, it 
will not be necessary to hold the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Edwards, Director, Program 
Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 
(voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY).

    Dated: November 25, 2014.

    For the Commission.
Jenny R. Yang,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2014-28668 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30628

Summary Calendar

REGINALD WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-1889

Before JONES, Chief Judge and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

ReginaldWilliams, Louisiana prisoner # 94495, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for seconddegree kidnapping. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on

the issue whether Williams’s claim that the state appeals court violated his due

process rights by affirming his conviction under a different subsection of the

kidnapping statute than that alleged in the bill of information was procedurally

barred. Williams does not identify any error in the district court’s dismissal of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-30628 Document: 00511635718 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2011
No. 10-30628

his claim as procedurally barred. Accordingly, he has waived the issue. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

Even if he did not waive the issue, he has not shown that the district court

erred in dismissing his claim as procedurally barred. The state district court

dismissed his state habeas application raising the claim as untimely; the state

appeals court and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his writ applications,

citing LA. CODE CRIM. P. arts. 930.8 and 930.4(A). This court has recognized a

dismissal as untimely under Article 930.8 as an independent and adequate state

procedural bar. See Glover v. Cain, 128 F.3d 900, 902 (5th Cir. 1997). Williams

did not show cause for his failure to raise the claim or prejudice. See United

States v. Smith, 216 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 2000). Williams has also failed to

show that a miscarriage of justice as he had not made a persuasive showing that

as a factual matter he did not commit the second degree kidnapping crime for

which he was convicted. See Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

2001). Therefore, Williams has not shown that the district court erred in

dismissing his claim as procedurally barred. See Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d

245, 253 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-30628 Document: 00511635718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2011
#### HONG ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71025

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Albert Chow, Attorney, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner

Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Russell John Verby, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, *493Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hong Zheng, a native and- citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)..We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

In denying Zheng’s claims, the BIA did not address the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, but found, even if credible, Zheng did not establish eligibility for relief. We reject Zheng’s contention that the BIA erred by declining to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zheng’s experiences in China, considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Gu,*454 F.3d at 1019-21; *see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although [petitioner’s] experiences are disturbing and regrettable, they do not evince actions so severe as to compel a finding of past persecution.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Zheng did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Gu,*454 F.3d at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Zheng’s asylum claim fails.

Because Zheng failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Zheng’s CAT claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of the government if returned to China. *Sep Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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