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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000836809
<NAME> DIMENSIONAL VISIONS GROUP, LTD.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.0000
<CASH>                                         109,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  298,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                   215,743
<INVENTORY>                                    179,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               380,995
<PP&E>                                       1,652,811
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,562,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 529,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          488,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    923,428
<COMMON>                                        68,138
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,075,993)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   529,520
<SALES>                                        551,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               551,517
<CGS>                                          306,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  306,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,576,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,162,134)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,162,134)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10wbw1






EXHIBIT 10.B.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

STOCK OPTION PLAN

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS




          Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the El Paso Energy Corporation Stock Option
Plan for Non-Employee Directors, Amended and Restated Effective as of January
20, 1999 (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective July 16, 1999:




          Section 3 is amended to read as follows:




“SECTION 3 ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN




          Unless otherwise determined by the Board and subject to Section 9,
the Plan shall be administered by a management committee (the “Plan
Administrator”) consisting of the Chief Executive Officer of the Company
and such other senior officers as the Chief Executive Officer shall
designate. The Plan Administrator shall interpret the Plan, shall
prescribe, amend and rescind rules relating to the Plan from time to time
as it deems proper and in the best interests of the Company, and shall take
any other action necessary for the administration of the Plan.”




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be duly
executed on this 16th day of July, 1999.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EL PASO ENERGY CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joel Richards III
 	 
	 	 	Joel Richards III 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Attest:

 	 
	 	/s/ David L. Siddall
 	 	 
	 	Corporate Secretary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE ALBERTO BELTRAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35313 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00915-SI 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: TROTT, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner George Alberto Beltran appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his

action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various constitutional violations. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. We deny Beltran’s request for oral argument, set forth in 

his opening brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35313 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Beltran

failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, or raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether there was “something in his particular case that made 

the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable 

to him.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); see 

also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion, which 

means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the 

agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beltran’s motion for 

default judgment because Beltran did not seek entry of default and defendants did 

not “fail to plead or otherwise defend.” See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 

(9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that Fed. R. Civ. P.

55 requires first the entry of a default and then entry of default judgment).

We reject as without merit Beltran’s contentions regarding judicial bias.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 
3 18-35313 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Order entered March 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01037-CR

GARY ANTHONY SANDERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-58529-H

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 20, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On March 6, 2015, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the January 20, 2015 order 

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### Francis M. Brown, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Pennsylvania Sugar Company, a Corporation, and E. R. Graham, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed February 1, 1928.

*James M. Carson*and *Loftin, Stokes*and *Calkins,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*E. J. L’Engle, J. W. Shands*and *H. Edgar Barnes,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

The declaration herein does not wholly fail to state a cause of action and it was error to sustain a demurrer thereto and to dismiss the cause. McDonald v. Exchange Supply Co., 88 Fla. 80, 101 So. 28; Cummings Machine Works v. Clark, 89 Fla. 383, 105 So. 100; Hawkins v. Shore Acres Properties, 93 Fla. 670, 112 So. 61; Yon v. Pinellas County Power Co., 93 Fla. 503, 112 So. 50.
EXHIBIT
        32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly filing of Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, Larry D. Ditto, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
      U.S.C.ss.1350), that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:
              March 21, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Larry
              D.
              DittoLarry
              D. DittoChairman
              and Chief Executive Officer
Rebecca B. EVERETT and Simon J. Everett, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Simon T. Everett v. DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; and FDB, LLC

No. 433P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Donald R. Strickland, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

Karen M. Rabenau, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

Jonathan E. Hall, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Ann-Patton Hornthal, Attorney at Law, Asheville, For FDB, LLC.

Michael Joseph Crook, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Thomas J. Wilson, Attorney at Law, Lincolnton, For Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

James E. R. Ratledge, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

Lachicotte Zemp, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheville, For FDB, LLC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of December 2018 by Defendant (Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 3, 2013

d0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147064

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147064

COA: 309460

Wayne CC: 11-000769-FC

KEITH LAMAR HENDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5280-N-08]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

*Effective Date: March 6, 2009.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: February 26, 2009.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

 [FR Doc. E9-4530 Filed 3-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Unassociated Document


 


Exhibit 10-N-9







Incremental Bonus Description







Due to tax deductibility restrictions under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (“AICP”), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors may create an “individual performance fund” that is paid at the sole discretion of the Committee in order to permit the Committee full discretion to recognize Named Executive Officers' individual performance.







The individual performance fund allows the Compensation Committee to provide a Named Executive Officer an individual performance bonus payout in an amount up to a maximum of 150% of the individual’s AICP award, less the amount of the AICP award.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4880 

To direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to require that a security 

plan for a maritime facility be resubmitted for approval upon transfer 

of ownership or operation of such facility, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2006 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, 

Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. KENNEDY

of Minnesota, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. BERRY, Mr. 

LATOURETTE, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan, 

Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. 

FOSSELLA, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. BROWN of South 

Carolina, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. FOLEY, and 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to require 

that a security plan for a maritime facility be resubmitted for approval upon transfer of ownership or operation of such facility, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4880 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maritime Terminal Se3 curity Enhancement Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REVIEW OF FACILITY PLANS. 

5 The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall require 

6 that a security plan for a facility required under section 

7 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, shall be resub8 mitted for approval upon transfer of ownership or oper9 ation of such facility. 

10 SEC. 3. FACILITY SECURITY OFFICERS. 

11 The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall require 

12 that the qualified individual having full authority to imple13 ment security actions who is required to be identified 

14 under section 70103(c)(3)(B) of title 46, United States 

15 Code, for a facility described in section 70103(c)(2) of 

16 that title shall be a citizen of the United States. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### Coral Gables Corporation, *Appellant,*v. Harry Freed, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 15, 1928.

*James S. Edson,*for Appellant;

*Harry Gordon,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING **201 4**  **WY 67**  **April Term, A.D. 201**  **4 May 29**  **, 2014 GERALD E. CONDA,**  **Appellant (Defendant),**  **v. THE STATE OF WYOMING,**  **Appellee (Plaintiff).**  **S -**  **14 -** **0055**



## O **RDER** 

## R**EVERSING** 

## J **UDGMENT AND** 

## S **ENTENCE** [¶1] **This matter** came before the Court upon a “ Stipulated Motion to Revers e and Remand,” e - filed herein May 15 , 201 4 . After a careful review of the motion and the file, this Court finds as follows. Appellant pled guilty to possession of marijuana, a third offense felony under Wyo . S tat . Ann. § 35 - 7 - 1031(c)(i) (A) . In the first issue in Appellant’s brief, he contends the charge does not qualify for felony treatment because he does not have the two prior convictions needed to enhance the charge to a felony . In the stipulated motion, the parties agree that one of the prior convictions relied upon by the district court was no conviction at all, because the charge was dismissed pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35 - 7 - 1037. This Court agrees as well. The charge against Appellant does not qualify for felony treatment , because he does not have two prior convictions . It is, therefore, [¶2] **ORDERED** that the “ Judgment and Sentence” entered on December 5 , 2013 , in Sheridan County District Court , Docket Cr . 2013 - 41 , be, and hereby is, reversed and vacated . Th is matter is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. [¶3] **DATED** this 2 9 th day of M ay , 201 4 . **BY THE COURT:** /s/ **MARILYN S. KITE Chief**  **Justice**
STATE v. Douglas Wayne STANALAND

333P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2019

Douglas Wayne Stanaland, for Stanaland, Douglas Wayne.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of May 2019 by Defendant for Claim of Void Judgments:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2019."
exv10w30





Exhibit 10.30




			
	 	 	 
	
	 	 






September 12, 2008

Mr. Shailendra Gupta

Ingram Micro Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.

260 Orchard Road

#09-01 The Heeren

Singapore 238855



Dear Shailendra,



This letter will confirm certain changes in your compensation package that were approved at
the September 10, 2008 meeting of the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors, as
follows:





	 	1.	 	Your current annual housing allowance of SGD 168,000 will cease effective
December 31, 2008.
	 
	 	2.	 	Your current annual goods and services allowance of SGD 72,000 will cease
effective December 31, 2008.
	 
	 	3.	 	Your annual base salary, based on 13 months of pay, will increase to SGD
720,000 effective January 1, 2009




In consideration of the cessation of the housing and goods & services allowances, the company
agrees to pay you a one time lump-sum payment of SGD 670,000 (subject to normal payroll
withholding taxes) in January 2009. It is further agreed and acknowledged that should your
employment with the company be terminated due to your voluntary resignation or terminated by
the company for cause, you will repay 65% of the net lump-sum payment if such employment
termination occurs after January 1, 2009 and before January 1, 2010 and that you will repay
35% of the net lump-sum payment if such employment termination occurs on or after January 1,
2010 and before January 2, 2011.



All other terms and conditions of your employment including the company’s contribution
towards your retirement account (15% of base salary), car allowance of SGD 54,000 per year,
and reimbursement of your children’s education of up to SGD 34,000 per child per year will
continue. These allowances, with the exception of the company’s contribution towards your
retirement account, will continue to be grossed-up for taxes.









 









 











Shailendra Gupta

September 12, 2008

Page 2



If the above confirms your understanding of the terms and conditions of your compensation package,
please sign both copies of this letter and return one original to Lynn Jolliffe, Senior Vice
President, Human Resources WW, retaining one original for your records.



I look
forward to your continued dedication and leadership.




Best regards,









Gregory M.E. Spierkel

Chief Executive Officer

Ingram Micro Inc.




I have received a copy of this letter and accept the terms and conditions as outlined above:




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

Shailendra Gupta

	 	 

Date
	 	 







			
	CC:	 	Alain Monié

Larry Boyd
Lynn
Jolliffe
Tom Berry

Angeline Neo

Personnel File
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Synergetics USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pamela G. Boone, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   October 11, 2011
/s/ Pamela G. BoonePamela G. BooneExecutive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Synergetics USA, Inc. and will be retained by Synergetics USA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.