alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,061                  12,327
<SECURITIES>                                   101,826                 101,065
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,855                  49,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,268)                   (787)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,193                 169,750
<PP&E>                                          55,649                  45,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,372                  23,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,318                 202,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,287                  37,850
<BONDS>                                          2,500                   2,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           260                     255
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,344                 158,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,318                 202,322
<SALES>                                         55,242                  48,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               251,417                 206,879
<CGS>                                           40,422                  36,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  240,803                 184,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   481                     430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197                     220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,200                  27,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,238                  10,848
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,962                  16,660
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,962                  16,660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31                    0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30                    0.64



</TABLE>
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-2451 KELLY SAINT FORT, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent, Appellee. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court, issued on May 9, 2003, is amended as follows: On page 24, line 16, delete the word "non".
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research: University Park, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Software
                        Integrated Farming Systems Project
                                    Integrated Farm System Model
                                    Dairy Gas Emissions Model
                                    Beef Gas Emissions Model
                                    Projected Future Climate Data for IFSMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area University Park, Pennsylvania Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research People & Locations







Scott  Spear
                        Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Worker
                        Phone: (814) 863-1680
                        
                        
                        Fax: (814) 863-0935(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RUSSELL W. JOLLIFFE SR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 27 WM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8

th day of September, 2022, the Petition for Specialized Review is 

DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DENISE L. SHARP, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30072 

D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00069-BMM-6 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Denise L. Sharp appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 9-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for theft from 

an Indian tribal government receiving federal funding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 666(a)(1)(A), and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have 

* 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30072 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sharp first contends that the court erred by applying a two-level

enhancement for abuse of a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G § 3B1.3. We 

review the court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the 

Sentencing Guidelines to those findings for abuse of discretion. See United States 

v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record reflects 

that Sharp was a personnel manager who was subject to minimal supervision and 

had the discretion to set extended working hours, including the fraudulent overtime 

hours that formed the basis of her offense. The court did not clearly err by finding 

that Sharp held a position of trust that she used to conceal the commission of the 

offense. See U.S.S.G § 3B1.3 cmt. n.1; United States v. Laurienti, 731 F.3d 967, 

973 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he presence or lack of professional or managerial 

discretion represents the decisive factor in deciding whether a defendant occupied 

a position of trust.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Sharp also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Contrary 

to Sharp’s contention, the district court considered the totality of the 

circumstances, including the amount of fraudulent overtime attributed to her, and 

did not abuse its discretion in imposing the significantly below-Guidelines 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10520

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 30, 2011.

Phelesa M. Guy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sergio Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The district court found that Perez gave false *953testimony with the intent to influence his sentence, added two levels to the base offense level for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The district court sentenced him to 235 months of imprisonment to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

He challenges the drug quantity calculated by the district court based on the information contained in the presen-tence report (PSR). The district court’s determination of the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for purposes of § 2D 1.1 is a factual finding made under the preponderance of the evidence standard reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Betancourt,*422 F.3d 240, 246-47 (5th Cir.2005). A district court may rely on the information in a PSR in the absence of rebuttal evidence. *United States v. 01-lison,*555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir.2009). The only rebuttal evidence presented to the information in the PSR was the testimony of Perez that he did not regularly deal in kilogram quantities of cocaine. The district court found that this testimony was false. Great deference is given to a district court’s credibility determinations. *United States v. Powers,*168 F.3d 741, 753 (5th Cir.1999). The district court did not err in relying on the information in a PSR in the absence of any credible rebuttal evidence.

Perez argues that the district court erred in imposing an offense level increase for obstruction of justice and in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the district court delegated the determination as to his code-fendant’s credibility to the police officer testifying at sentencing. With respect to obstruction of justice, the increase is reviewed for clear error, and will not be set aside absent this court’s “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” *United States v. Pofahl,*990 F.2d 1456, 1481, 1488 (5th Cir.1993). The district court found that Perez knowingly had given false testimony for the purpose of influencing his sentence. Perez has not shown that this finding was clearly erroneous. With respect to the denial of credit for acceptance of responsibility, Perez has not shown that it was without foundation. *See United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:8
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:9
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:10
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:11
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:12
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:13
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:14
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:15
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:16
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:17
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:18
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:19
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:20
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:21
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:22
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:23
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:24
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:25
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:26
Case: 1:01-cr-01129 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/01 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:27
aspn-ex103_95.htm



 

Exhibit 10.3

THIRD AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”), effective as of June 29, 2021, is entered into by and between Aspen Aerogels, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Donald R. Young (the “Executive”), for purposes of amending that certain Executive Agreement between the parties effective as of January 1, 2019 as previously amended on August 1, 2019 and on January 1, 2020 (the “Executive Agreement”).

RECITALS

Whereas, the Company has determined to grant the Executive an equity award (the “Award”) pursuant to that certain Performance-Based Restricted Stock Agreement, by and between the Company and the Executive as of the date hereof (the “Restricted Stock Agreement”); and

Whereas, in connection with the Award granted under the Restricted Stock Agreement, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Executive Agreement to provide for the removal of the bonus payable to the Executive in the event a Change of Control is consummated within the Performance Period and the CIC Price is equal to or greater than $6.00; and

Now, therefore, in consideration of mutual promises and other terms set forth below, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


	
 
	
1.
	
Amendment.  The Executive Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




 


	
 
	
(A)
	
The text of Section 2(d)(i) is deleted in full and shall now provide that it is “RESERVED.”




 


	
 
	
(B)
	
The text of Section 2(d)(ii) is deleted in full and shall now provide that it is “RESERVED.”




 


	
 
	
(C)
	
The text of Section 2(d)(iii) is deleted in full and shall now provide that it is “RESERVED.”




 


	
 
	
(D)
	
The text of Section 2(d)(v) is deleted in full and shall now provide that it is “RESERVED.”




 

 


	
 
	
2.
	
Miscellaneous Provisions.  Capitalized terms used but not defined within this Amendment have the meanings specified within the Executive Agreement.  Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Executive Agreement remain in full force and effect.  This Amendment can be executed by the parties hereto by facsimile and in counterparts, each of which is deemed an original and both of which taken together constitutes one agreement binding upon the parties hereto.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.




 

 




 



 

 

In witness whereof, the Parties hereto enter into this Amendment by signing below.

 

 


			
	
ASPEN AEROGELS, INC.
	
 
	
THE EXECUTIVE

	
 

By:_ /s/ John F. Fairbanks
	
 
	
 

By: /s/ Donald R. Young

	
Name: John F. Fairbanks
	
 
	
Name: Donald R. Young

	
Title: Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
	
 
	
 




 


			
	
June 29, 2021
	
 
	
 

	
Date
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal 

control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-106441, 333-98765, 333-62868,333-38072, 333-33946, 333-91451, 333-88719, 333-85031, 333-53153, 333-52349, 333-52347, 333-52345, 333-116661) and Form S-3 (No. 333- 85628) of Visual Networks, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2004, except for Note 2, as to which the date isMarch 15, 2005, relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 30, 2004, except for Note 2, as to which the date is March 15, 2005, relating to thefinancial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

McLean, Virginia 

March 15, 2005 

 

48
#### Alaculsey Lumber Co. *et al. v.*Shippen Brothers Lumber Co.

April 13, 1915.

Injunction. Before Judge Patterson. Fannin superior court. June *23,*1914.

*G. N. King, William Butt, W. K. Mann,*and *W. G. Marlin,*for plaintiffs in error. *T. A. Brown*and *D. W. Blair,*contra.

Hill, J.

1. Section 804 of the Civil Code of 1910, relative to condemning private property for connecting a tramroad with any waterway or railway, applies only in cases of necessity. *Normandale Lumber Co.*v. *Knight,*89 *Ga.*111 (14 S. E. 882); *Jones*v. *Venable,*120 *Ga.*1 (47 S. E. 549, 1 Ann. Cas. 185) ; *Valdosta &c. Railroad Co.*v. *Adel Lumber Co.,*136 *Ga.*559 (71 S. E. 803).

2. The court, acting on conflicting evidence, did not abuse his discretion in granting the injunction in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51289 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. LUIS SANCHEZ-ARIZA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-279-ALL Before KING, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Sanchez-Ariza raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 5, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51289

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-3321, 333-3323 and 333-47357 on Form S-8 previously filed by CD&L, Inc. of
our report dated March 29, 2006, relating to our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of CD&L, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CD&L, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2005.

/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP

Roseland, New Jersey
March 29, 2006

                                       71