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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,193,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    166,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,508,000
<PP&E>                                         506,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,916,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,235,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  8,676,000
<COMMON>                                    12,810,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,505,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,916,000
<SALES>                                      1,651,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,651,000
<CGS>                                          613,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  959,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             117,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (38,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5445]


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


LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting of the Presidential Search Committee of the 
Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: The Presidential Search Committee of the Legal Services 
Corporation Board of Directors will meet on March 8-9, 1997. The 
meeting will begin at 3:00 p.m. on March 8, 1997, and continue on March 
9, 1997, until conclusion of the committee's agenda.

STATUS OF MEETING: With the exception of the adoption of the agenda and 
the approval of minutes, the meeting will be closed pursuant to a 
unanimous vote of the Board of Directors to hold an executive session. 
At the executive session, the Committee will interview candidates for 
the position of president of the Corporation. The closing is authorized 
by the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act [5 
U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(2) & (6)] and the corresponding regulation of the 
Legal Services Corporation [45 C.F.R. Sec. 1622.5(a) & (e)]. A copy of 
the General Counsel's Certification that the closing is authorized by 
law will be posted for public inspection at Corporation headquarters, 
750 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, in its 11th floor 
reception area, and will also be available upon request.

LOCATION: Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. (202) 628-2100.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of agenda.
2. Approval of minutes of February 20 and 27, 1997.

CLOSED SESSION:

3. Interview with candidates for the position of President of the Legal 
Services Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel & 
Secretary of the Corporation, (202) 336-8810.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Barbara Asante, at (202) 336-8800.

    Dated: February 28, 1997.
Victor M. Fortuno,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-5445 Filed 2-28-97; 2:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Keith KNOX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50079

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Daniel Hyun Kun Ahn, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephanie Ames, Esquire, The Law Office of Stephanie Ames, Los Angeles, 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 **

William Keith Knox appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Knox contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. He asserts that his questions and statements during the change-of-plea hearing reflect that he did not understand the plea. He further contends that the court failed to remedy his confusion and confirm that he was pleading guilty voluntarily, as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires. We review the voluntariness of a plea de novo, and an unpreserved Rule 11 claim for plain error. *See United States v. Carter,*795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2015).

Contrary to Knox’s argument, the record reflects that the court thoroughly reviewed all aspects of Knox’s plea with him, gave him multiple opportunities to speak privately with his attorney, and adequately addressed his questions and requests for clarification. The totality of the circumstances show that his plea was knowing and voluntary. *See United States v. Kaczynski,*239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, there was no plain Rule 11 error; the district court twice confirmed that Knox was pleading guilty voluntarily and the record does not reflect that Knox would have pled differently had the court inquired further. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2); *United States v. Escamilla-Rojas,*640 F.3d 1055, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### XPO LOGISTICS WORLDWIDE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Crowley Logistics, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2018-1202

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 7, 2018

Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Claybrook LLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Charles Baek, Daniel Ruben Forman, James G. Peyster, Mark Ríes, Crowell *&*Moring, LLP, Washington, DC,

Christopher' L. Harlow, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by Chad A. Rea-dler, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr„ Patricia M. McCarthy.

Kara M. Sacilotto, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Crowley Logistics, Inc. Also represented by Cara Lyn Lasley, Brian Gerard Walsh, Gary Scott Ward.

(Moore, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam .

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information from the Registrant's
consolidated condensed financial statements as of and for the nine months ended
September 30, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
consolidated condensed financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,442
<INVENTORY>                                     67,480
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,020
<PP&E>                                           8,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,867
<BONDS>                                         60,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,837
<SALES>                                        181,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,219
<CGS>                                          141,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,719)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,013)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,757)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     58
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,712)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
        

</TABLE>
Document

															
					Exhibit 10.1

 GUESS?, INC.
Extension of CEO Employment Agreement
June 30, 2021

Carlos Alberini




Re:    Amendment of Employment Agreement




Dear Carlos:
As you know, you are party to an employment agreement with Guess?, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), dated January 27, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”).  This letter amends Section 2 of your Employment Agreement to read as follows:
“2.    EMPLOYMENT TERM.  The Executive’s first day of employment will be a date that is mutually agreeable to the parties to this Agreement (expected to be not later than March 27, 2019). (The Executive’s first day of employment by the Company or one of its subsidiaries is referred to as the “Effective Date.”) The Executive’s term of employment under this Agreement (such term of employment, as it may be extended or terminated, is herein referred to as the “Employment Term”) shall be for a term commencing on the Effective Date and ending on June 30, 2025; provided that on June 30, 2025 and on each successive annual anniversary of that date thereafter the Employment Term shall be automatically extended on such date for an additional one (1) year period unless, on or before the date that is ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Employment Term then in effect, the Company or the Executive has notified the other in writing (a “non-renewal notice”) that the Employment Term shall terminate at the end of the then-current term (in which case the Employment Term shall terminate at the end of the then-current term with no extension, or no further extension, as the case may be, thereof). At least six (6) months prior to June 30, 2025, the parties to this Agreement agree to discuss the terms of any proposed extension of the then-current Employment Term.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in all cases the Employment Term is subject to earlier termination as provided in Section 8 hereof.”
Except for the restatement of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement as set forth above, the provisions of your Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.  This letter agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Photographic copies of such signed counterparts may be used in lieu of the originals for any purpose.
EXECUTIVE OFFICES  1444 South Alameda Street, Los Angeles, CA  90021  213.765.3100








We appreciate your dedication to the Company.


GUESS?, INC.


/s/ Jason T. Miller        
By: Jason T. Miller
Title: General Counsel
Acknowledged and Agreed:




By:    /s/ Carlos Alberini        
    Carlos Alberini
Date:    June 30, 2021


2
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 32a


        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code



     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated.



                                    /s/ E. James Ferland
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    February 28, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11848-11849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6246]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory Group 
on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Thursday, 10 April 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter Gelnovatch, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), 
and through the DDR&E, to the Director Defense Advanced Research 
Projects

[[Page 11849]]

Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an 
effective research and development program in the field of electron 
devices.
    The Working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with 
industry, universities or in their laboratories. The microelectronics 
area includes such programs on semiconductor materials, integrated 
circuits, charge coupled devices and memories. The review will include 
classified program details throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 
U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be 
closed to the public.

    Dated: March 7, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-6246 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
# C_2022380EN.01001301.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/13

---

Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Berlin Hyp v SRB

(Case T-400/22)

(2022/C 380/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berlin Hyp AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the applicant’s 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the applicant’s 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---
#### Jeremy C. SOUTHGATE, d/b/a Sound Spark Studios, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FACEBOOK, INC.; Instagram, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2421

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 15, 2018

Jeremy C. Southghte, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew S. Bruns, Paven Malhotra, KEK-ER, VAN NEST *&*PETERS LLP, San Francisco, California; Craig Crandall Reilly, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy C. Southgate appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Southgate v. Facebook, Inc.,*No. 1:17-cv-00648-AJT-*302IDD, 2017 WL 6759867 (E.D. Va. Nov. 14, 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*
No. 11-10713.

#### McKinney *v.*Washington.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022138EN.01002801.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/28

---

Action brought on 31 January 2022 — Labaš v EUIPO (FRESH)

(Case T-58/22)

(2022/C 138/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miroslav Labaš (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Vasiľ, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FRESH — Application for registration No 18 311 155

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2021 in Case R 610/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | or alternatively, annul part of the contested decision with regards to the Classes 35 and 39 specified in the contested application; |
| --- | --- |

—

or alternatively, annul part of the contested decision with regards to the Classes 35 and 39 specified in the contested application;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Lack of the definition of the direct link between the sign FRESH and its inadmissibility to be registered for goods and services in Classes 35 and 39. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lack of the definition of the direct link between the sign FRESH and its inadmissibility to be registered for goods and services in Classes 35 and 39.

---
EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600

The following information is located in the confidentiali ty files of the Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality P lanning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N orth Carolina 27711. This information is confidential pending final determination by t he Administrator and is not available for public inspection.

Memorandum from K. Schaffner, RTI International, to S . Shedd, EPA/OAQPS. Site visit to KinderMorgan Liquids Terminals in Galena Park, Texas o n June 24, 2010. Dated August

2010. Draft.

The site visit memorandum contains information about ma rine vessel loading at the KinderMorgan Liquids Terminals facility. The confidential m aterial is comprised of 12 pages.
#### FULTON BANK, N.A. v. SANDQUIST, P.

2306 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

2016-01908-TT (Chester)

Affirmed/Reversed
# C_2022073EN.01006201.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/62

---

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL)

(Case T-797/21)

(2022/C 73/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HELIXORIGINAL — Application for registration No 17 234 824

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2021 in Case R 1644/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---