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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997             DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997             MAR-29-1996
<CASH>                                             618                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,251                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,089                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,064                       0
<PP&E>                                         118,577                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,964                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,178                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,246                       0
<BONDS>                                        109,392                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             1                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,365                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,178                       0
<SALES>                                         54,028                  36,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,028                  36,765
<CGS>                                           40,654                  28,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,131                  35,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (67)                      14
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,824                     985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,140                    (87)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,065                   (189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                     710
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,065                     521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20504

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY BINDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-87-CR-314-2

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny Binder, Jr., federal prisoner #46490-079, appeals

from the denial of his motion for the return of property, namely,

a Rolls Royce motorcar and various jewelry items, pursuant to

FED. R. CRIM P. 41(e). Binder contends that his property should

not have been forfeited and that he did not receive due process

during the forfeiture proceedings. He argues that the property

that was forfeited was relevant to a charge of which he was

acquitted and that the notice given by the Drug Enforcement 
No. 97-20504

-2-

Administration was improper. He alleges that allegations

regarding the relationship of the Rolls Royce that was forfeited

to drug-trafficking were false and that Nathalia Binder (his

mother) was hoodwinked into agreeing to the forfeiture of the

Rolls Royce in a judicial forfeiture proceeding.

Because the Government sold the property that is the subject

of Binder’s motion, he may not obtain relief pursuant to Rule

41(e). Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 984, 986 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court need not have allowed Binder to amend his

pleadings to state a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). First, Nathalia Binder agreed to the judgment forfeiting

the Rolls Royce and judgment was entered by the district court. 

Binder is precluded from raising any claims regarding the agreed

judgment. United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir.

1994). Second, Binder received due process in the administrative

forfeiture proceedings regarding the jewelry. See Scarabin v.

Drug Enforcement Admin., 919 F.2d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Binder’s appeal is frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Amendment to Change in Control Agreement - G. Edward McClammy



 Exhibit 10.28 
 AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
 THIS
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between VARIAN, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and G. Edward McClammy, an employee of the Company (“Employee”). 
 The Company and Employee are parties to a Change in Control Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 8, 2007. On
July 26, 2009, the Company, Agilent Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger
Agreement”), pursuant to which Merger Sub will, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, merge with and into the Company and the Company will survive the merger and continue as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Agilent (the “Merger”). In connection with approving entering into the Merger Agreement, the Board determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders for the Company to amend the Agreement,
effective as of, and contingent upon, the closing of the Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. 
 In view of the foregoing,
the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
 1. Subsections (ii) and (iii) of the definition of “Good
Reason” set forth in Section 3(d) of the Agreement are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows, effective as of, and contingent upon, the closing of the Merger: 
 “(ii) A reduction of Employee’s total compensation, as was provided to Employee as of July 26, 2009, as the
same may have been increased from time to time after the Change in Control Date other than (A) a reduction implemented with the consent of Employee or (B) a reduction that is generally comparable (proportionately) to compensation
reductions imposed on senior executives of the Company generally; or 
 (iii) The failure to provide to Employee
the benefits and perquisites, including participation on a comparable basis in the Company’s stock option, incentive, and other similar plans in which employees of the Company of comparable title and salary grade participate, as were provided
to Employee immediately prior to July 26, 2009, or with a package of benefits and perquisites that are substantially comparable in all material respects to such benefits and perquisites provided prior to July 26, 2009; or” 

2. This Amendment, taken together with the Agreement, to the extent not modified by this Amendment, supersedes any and all previous
contracts, arrangements or understandings between the parties with respect to the Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
acknowledge that they have read and understand the terms of this Amendment and have executed this Amendment to be effective on the date that it is signed by both parties. 








									
	VARIAN, INC.	 		 	EMPLOYEE
			
	             /s/ Arthur W. Homan

	 		 	            /s/ G. Edward McClammy


	By:	 	Arthur W. Homan	 		 	G. Edward McClammy
	Title:	 	Secretary	 		 	
					
	Date:	 	September 4, 2009	 		 	Date:	 	September 8, 2009

  

 2
(27 App. Div. 144.)

#### PRINGLE v. LONG ISLAND R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 25, 1898.)

Revival of Action—Laches—Waiver.

In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s testator, issue was joined in 1886, and the action was reached for trial in 1888, and

' was marked “Reserved generally.” The plaintiff, who was executrix of the deceased, died in July, 1894, and letters of administration with the will annexed were issued to her successor in October, 1897. In December, 1897, a motion by the administrator to revive the action, and continue the same in his name, was denied on the ground of laches. *Held,*that laches was no answer to such a motion, for under Code Giv. Proc. § 761, the living party had it in its power to have compelled the revivor of the action and a trial, or, in default thereof, to have the action abated, and, not having availed itself of this right, it could not claim to have been injured by the delay.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Mary B. Pringle, as executrix, against the Long Island Railroad Company. James S. Biddell, as administrator of plaintiff, appealed from an order denying a motion to revive the action. Reversed. , '

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and RUMSEY, McLAUCHLIN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

James E. Duross, for appellant.

W. J. Kelly, for respondent.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

This action was commenced in 1886, to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's testator, which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Issue was joined in June, 1886. The action was noticed for trial in May,' *5371887, and was readied for trial in May, 1888, when it was marked “Reserved generally.” No further proceedings were taken until the service of the motion papers on this application in October, 1897. The plaintiff, who was the executrix of the deceased, died on the 2d^ of July, 1894, and on the 15th of October, 1897, letters of administration with the will annexed were issued to the appellant. A motion was thereupon made in December, 1897, to revive the action and continue the same in the name of such administrator with the will annexed,which motion was denied, apparently upon the ground of laches in making it. It would seem that the case of Holsman v. St. John. 90 N. Y. 461, holds that-laches was no answer to such a motion; that such a rule works no injury to the adverse party, for, under section 761 of the present' Code, the court may, upon the application of the living party, prescribe a time not less than six months, and not more than ■ a year, wherein the representative of the deceased party must be substituted, or, in default, it may direct that the action abate; and that, therefore, the defendant had it in its power to compel the revivor of the action and a trial of the same, in default of which the action would abate.

In view of this authority, it would seem that the order of the court below was wrong, and should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.

RUMSEY and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur. INGRAHAM, J., concurs in result.
#### William A. Fox, Respondent, *v.*The Village of Fort Edward, Appellant.

(Argued April 15, 1890;

decided April 29, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made May 1Y, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*L. H. Northrup*for appellant.

*J. S. L'Amoreaux*for respondent.

Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors of the General
Partner of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-106804) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-107609) on
Form S-3 of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. of our reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, partners' capital, comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2004, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Los
Angeles, California
March 10, 2005



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                             (18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350)

I, David G. Fiore, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Achievement
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

     (1) The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended August
30, 2003 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

                                                  /s/ DAVID G. FIORE
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: David G. Fiore
                                          Title:   President and Chief Executive
                                                   Officer

Date: November 17, 2003
#### Ira T. Curtis, Appellant, *v.*Manning F. Crane, Respondent.

(Argued March 11, 1890;

decided April 15, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 15, 1887, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*Samuel J. Crooks*for appellant.

*C. E. Cuddeback*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2326 Engrossed in House (EH)]

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2326

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd 
                         Lupton Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2326

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd 
                         Lupton Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 614 
West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### CAMP CLEARWATER, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. GEORGE WILSON, Jr., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 59 *N. J. Super.*1.

*Messrs. Maclcerley & Friedman*and *Mr. Franlc G. Schlosser*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Morris, *Downing <& Sherred*for the respondent.

April 8, 1960.

Denied.
# L_2008301EN.01000301.xml

| 12.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 301/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 301/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1116/2008

of 11 November 2008

entering certain names in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bœuf de Bazas (PGI), Kainuun rönttönen (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Bœuf de Bazas’ and Finland’s application to register the name ‘Kainuun rönttönen’ were published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Bœuf de Bazas’ and Finland’s application to register the name ‘Kainuun rönttönen’ were published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The names contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 November 2008.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 73, 19.3.2008, p. 26 (Bœuf de Bazas), OJ C 74, 20.3.2008, p. 72 (Kainuun rönttönen).

2

---

ANNEX

1.

| Class 1.1. | Fresh meat (and offal) |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.1.

Fresh meat (and offal)

FRANCE

Bœuf de Bazas (PGI)

2.

| Class 2.4. | Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares |
| --- | --- |

Class 2.4.

Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares

FINLAND

Kainuun rönttönen (PGI)

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4600-DR;Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]


Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4600-DR), dated May 5, 2021, and related 
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of May 5, 2021.

    Gordon County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-14097 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[No. 18878-3-II.

Division Two.

October 3, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert Glen Simonis, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-1-00517-1, Robert L. Harris, J., entered November 3, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.