alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
20 November 2014 *********************

NSN: 8955-01-538-0702 (CIFV) * MONOGRAPH M7S

 ********************* 

Item: Flavored instant cappuccino, Regular, French vanilla

Document: A-A-20336, Drink Mixes, Coffee (Unflavored and Flavored) and PKG&QAP

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 120 Component Classification: Secondary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Dehydrated product: Fine grained, well-blended homogenous mixture. Off-white and 

dark brown color combination.

Hydrated product: Smooth and free of discernible lumps and sedimentation. Medium 

cream brown color with a layer of milky white froth on top.

Odor: Dehydrated product: Characteristic of French vanilla instant cappuccino.

Hydrated product: Strong sweetened coffee with cream.

Flavor: Characteristic of French vanilla instant cappuccino.

Texture:

Dehydrated product: Free flowing and free of lumps.

Hydrated product: Completely disperse in hot or cold water with constant stirring or 

shaking, and free of undissolved floating particles.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance:

Dehydrated product: Caked or lumpy, darkened areas. Off colors. 

Hydrated product: Darkened color, settling or undissolved particles.

Odor: Decreased French vanilla cappuccino odor. Rancid. Cooked or scorched milk.

Flavor: Decreased French vanilla cappuccino odor. Rancid. Cooked or scorched milk.

Texture:

Dehydrated product: Caked or lumpy (see Special Notes). 

Hydrated product: Particles fail to disperse in hot or cold water.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Initial examination should be done in the dry state. Final examination should be done after 

reconstituting. Even if caked in the dry state it should be reconstituted for future reference.

Special Notes

Dehydrated product may contain lumps which are of no concern provided they break or fall apart under 

light finger pressure. Dark brown specs may become larger as more moisture is absorbed into the 

product.
No. 11-6929.

#### Oscar Francisco Macias-Ovalle, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1045, 132 S. Ct. 600,

181 L. Ed. 2d 440,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8192.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 710.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 3, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER
3, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 
OCTOBER 3, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001067346
<NAME> AAI.FOSTERGRANT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,446
<INVENTORY>                                     28,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,238
<PP&E>                                          37,785
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,580
<BONDS>                                         77,276
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,027
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,578)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,466
<SALES>                                        125,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,480
<CGS>                                           67,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,823
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   444
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,160)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.78)
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,413                   1,413
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,466                  22,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                       137                     137
<INVENTORY>                                      5,975                   5,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,615                  30,615
<PP&E>                                          23,776                  23,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,955                   4,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 214,711                 214,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,173                  13,173
<BONDS>                                        146,040                 146,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,706                  52,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   214,711                 214,711
<SALES>                                         24,518                  68,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,518                  68,979
<CGS>                                           14,827                  43,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,827                  43,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   106                     126
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,258                  12,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    116                 (1,586)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       480                     681
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (364)                 (2,267)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (364)                 (2,267)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        



</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Si ppel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2109

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Donald Ray Evans, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 6, 2006 Filed: September 26, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Donald Ray Evans pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). At sentencing the district court 1 calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 151-188 months, and se ntenced Evans to concurrent terms of 180 months in prison and 3 years of superv ised release, and ordered him to pay $2,624.22 in restitution. On appeal, counsel moves to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing there is nothing to appeal. In his pro se brief and mandamus petiti on, Evans argues a multitude of issues-2- regarding the completeness of his appellate record, hi s plea, and his sentencing. Evans also claims ineffec tive assistance of counsel.
Having carefully considered each of Ev ans’s claims, we conclude they lack merit and we affirm the judgment of the district court. As to Evans’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find no reason to depart from this court’s usual rule of requiring such claims to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court “will consider ineffective-assistance claims on di rect appeal only wher e the record has been fully developed, where not to act would am ount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent”). Finally, we find that Evans’s request to include extra-judicial letters in the districtcourt record has been previously granted and accordingly we deny hi s mandamus petition. SeeIn re MidAmerican Energy Co. , 286 F.3d 483, 486 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curi am) (mandamus is extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances , such as those amounting to judicial usurpation of power).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, deny the mandamus petition, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
No. 11-7343.

#### Natalya Hampel, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1153, 132 S. Ct. 1105,

181 L. Ed. 2d 973,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 595.

January 17, 2012.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 995.
Date: 15 November 2023 ******************** 

NSN: 8920-01-556-1172 (GMB) *MONOGRAPH: M10V

 ******************** 

Item: Granola with milk and blueberries

Document: PCR-G-003 Granola, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 210 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Dry product: Free-flowing mixture of rolled oat flakes, nonfat dry milk powder, freezedried dark purple to dark blue colored blueberries.

Rehydrated product: Mixture of light to medium tan color distinct rolled oat flakes, 

dark purple to dark blue colored blueberries, coconut pieces, and thin milky liquid

(may be a blue to purple color from the blueberries).

Odor:

Dry product: Moderate toasted grain, sweet dairy, mild coconut and may have a mild 

blueberry odor.

Rehydrated product: Moderate sweet, toasted grain, slight dairy, mild blueberry and 

coconut.

Flavor: Rehydrated product: Moderate sweet, toasted grain, slight dairy, mild blueberry and 

coconut.

Texture:

Rehydrated product: Chewy and firm rolled oat flakes, soft and moist blueberries, 

fibrous coconut pieces, thin milky liquid with a creamy mouthfeel; some free liquid 

and an even distribution of moisture throughout the granola and fruit.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Dry product: Caked or lumped, not free flowing, blackened blueberries. 

Rehydrated product: Darkened milky liquid.

Odor: Dry product: Rancid, soapy, scorched, burnt, sour dairy. 

Rehydrated product: Rancid, soapy, scorched, burnt, sour dairy.

Flavor: Dry product: Rancid, soapy, scorched, burnt, sour dairy.

Rehydrated product: Rancid, soapy, scorched, burnt, sour dairy.

Texture: Dry product: Not free flowing. Caked or lumped.

Rehydrated product: Gummy cereal, stringy liquid, hard blueberries.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Initially examine in dry state for appearance and texture; then examine IAW rehydration directions on 

package

Special Notes

When rehydrated per instructions the product shall have some free liquid and an even distribution of 

moisture throughout the granola and blueberries. Lumps that break apart under pressure are no concern. 

This product should contain an oxygen scavenger packet. If defects such as oxidized or rancid flavors 

exist, they are likely due to package failure or the absence of an oxygen scavenger.
No. 11-7363.

#### William Hudson, Petitioner v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 1163, 132 S. Ct. 1136,

181 L. Ed. 2d 990,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 745.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 11-7452.

#### Archie Bear, Petitioner v. John Fayram, Warden.

565 U.S. 1166, 132 S. Ct. 1113,

181 L. Ed. 2d 995,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 870,

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 650 F.3d 1120.
No. 11-7193.

#### Ramiret B. Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1086, 132 S. Ct. 833,

181 L. Ed. 2d 539,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8709.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 956.
No. 11-7224.

#### Frederick Gross, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1098, 132 S. Ct. 858,

181 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8969.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

*559Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 490.
No. 11-7152.

#### Ernest Edward Robertson, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1086, 132 S. Ct. 831,

181 L. Ed. 2d 538,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8674.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Memorandum

To: Docket ATBCB 201 0

-00 04, Transportation Vehicles

From: Melissa Anderson

Re: Ex Parte C ommunication with Dallas Smith Corp.

Date: November 9 , 2012

On November 9 , 2012 , representatives of the Access Board met with Mr. Garrett Smith , Dallas Smith Corp. , Greencastle, IN and others as noted on the attached Attendee List, at the Washington Metro politan Transportation Authority facilities, at 600 5 th St. NW, Washington, DC for a vehicle review and discussio n. Mr. Smith provided two vehicles for demonstration; a Chevrolet/GM 4500 cutaway chassis (14,200 GVWR) and a Ford F550 (19,500 GVWR) bare chassis which detailed some of the manufacturing processes when converting a chassis to a low floor vehicle. The purpose of the meeting was to demonstrate the structural elements of these particular buses and how they affect the installation of ramps and the available floor space in the bus. The meeting began at approximately 9:00 am ET with introductions and an explanation of the vehicles. Members of the group were allowed to access the fully constructed bus using the 1:6 ramp that had been installed. Observations were made regarding the movement of both manual and power wheelchair users entering, exiting and maneuvering within the bus. The meeting was then moved into a meeting room in the building. Discussion followed regarding the structural constraints of the vehicles displayed and the ramp and floor elements as shown. Mr. Smith provided handouts, which are also attached, that show vehicle dimension s and drawings. Major areas of discussion were as follows: 1. The proposed maximum 1:6 ramp slope on buses (Proposed 36 CFR Parts 1192, T303.8) and the various methods of implementation and results seen by manufacturers, operators and users. 2. Availability of floor space for maneuvering in the vestibule of the b us and the elements that might a ffect it, such as floor slope, ramp location, fare box and driver position 3. The slope and flatness of the floor within the vestibule and detection of the slope change by pe rsons who are visually impaired. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff thanked Mr. Smith and others in attendance and noted that the meeting notes along with the meeting materials would be posted to the Docket.People in Attendance

George Altevogt, R ohrer Bus Sales Darren Back, Dallas Smith Corp. Peter Stimbra, Parker Hannifin/Dallas Smith Corp. Joel Badskey, Morryde International Garry Ladner, Dallas Smith Corp. David Knight, US Department of Justice Steve Asztalos, Dallas Smith Corp Jamie Lipka Campion Bus, Inc. Corinna Sigsbury, WMATA Carol Peredo Lopez, WMATA Garrett Smith, Dallas Smith Corp. Jamie Lipka, Champion Bus David Capozzi, US Access Board Marsha Mazz, US Access Board Scott Windley, US Access Board Melissa Anderson, US Access Board
Exhibit 10.38

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of March 16, 2012, is made by and between NCO GROUP, INC. (the “Company”), and Ronald Rittenmeyer (the “Executive”).

 

Whereas the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of March 18, 2011 (the “Employment Agreement”).

 

Whereas the Company and Executive wish to extend the initial term of the Employment Agreement until May 1, 2012.

 

Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and the Executive agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

 

1.              Extension of Term. The first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Employment Agreement entitled Term is hereby deleted and replaced by the following sentence: “The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on May 1, 2012, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section 5 hereof (the “Term of Employment”).”

 

2.              Other Provisions. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set the Executive’s hand and the Company has caused this Amendment to Employment Agreement to be executed in its name on its behalf all of as of the day and year first above written.

 

	
 
    	
NCO GROUP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Thomas J. Erhardt
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Thomas J. Erhardt
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
EVP CFO NCO Group
    


 

INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND I hereby set my hand below:

 

	
 
    	
/s/ Ronald Rittenmeyer
    
	
 
    	
Ronald Rittenmeyer
    
	
 
    	
Dated:
    	
March 18 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 3, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 3, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED
IN FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001067354
<NAME> FANTASMA, LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              17
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                       206
<INVENTORY>                                      3,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,434
<PP&E>                                              29
<DEPRECIATION>                                      10
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,629
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,591
<SALES>                                          2,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,844
<CGS>                                            3,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    24
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,645)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,645)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-358-000]


PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

July 30, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 28, 1998, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest 
Corporation (PG&E GT-NW) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 4 
and Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 4a.
    PG&E GT-NW states that these tariff sheets are filed to comply with 
the Commission's January 12, 1995 Order in Docket No. CP93-618 that 
PG&E GT-NW update the rates for service on its Medford and Coyote 
Springs Extensions to reflect the capital costs approved in its rate 
proceeding in Docket No. RP94-149. PG&E GT-NW requests that the above-
referenced tariff sheets become effective September 1, 1998.
    PG&E GT-NW further states that a copy of this filing has been 
served on PG&E GT-NW's jurisdictional customers and interested state 
regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20856 Filed 8-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-6478.

#### Inara Cedrins, Petitioner v. Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

565 U.S. 1041, 132 S. Ct. 605,

181 L. Ed. 2d 433,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8253,

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.