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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    287,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               312,185
<PP&E>                                         106,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 443,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   443,126
<SALES>                                        517,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               524,870
<CGS>                                          333,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,668)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)


</TABLE>
Document

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


            This First Amendment to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”), is made and entered into as of July 23, 2021 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Insmed Incorporated, a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), and Martina Flammer (the “Executive”) (each of the Executive and the Company, a “Party”, and collectively, the “Parties”).


            WHEREAS, the Executive has been performing services as an employee to the Company pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement between the Company and the Executive dated December 19, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”); 


            WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company mutually desire to amend the Employment Agreement to revise the Executive’s principal location of employment or service as described in Section 5(c); and


            WHEREAS, this First Amendment, dated as of the Effective Date, between the parties contains the entire agreement between the Executive and the Company and supersedes any and all prior agreements, arrangements and understandings regarding the subject matter contained herein.  


            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that, as of the Effective Date of this First Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall be amended as follows:


1.Section 5(c) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows (changes indicated in bold):


(c)        Working Facilities. During the Term of Employment, the Company shall furnish the Executive with an office, administrative help and such other facilities similar to those provided to similarly situated executives of the Company.  The Executive’s principal location of employment or service (subject to reasonable travel) shall be Easton, CT.  


1.Except as modified by this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.


[Signatures on Following Page]






















            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, have executed this First Amendment, effective as of the date set forth above.  




INSMED INCORPORATED
Insmed Incorporated, a Virginia corporation




By:      /s/William H. Lewis                                        
Name: William H. Lewis 
Title:   Chair and CEO




EXECUTIVE




/s/Martina Flammer                                        
Name: Martina Flammer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,358
<SECURITIES>                                    14,551
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,503
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,155
<PP&E>                                           7,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,056
<OTHER-SE>                                     (26,574)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,565
<SALES>                                         43,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,315
<CGS>                                            9,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,820)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,023)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,023)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.55)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES, L.P. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,391
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      138
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (100)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,429
<PP&E>                                          80,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              794
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,821
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (3,062)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,913)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (50)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William M. Klein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 8, 2004 |  | /s/ William M. Klein   
|                        |  | William M. Klein       
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRYAN KEITH NOEL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00057

- RJC

- 1; 1:16

- cv - 00406

- RJC )

Submitted : January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Bryan Keith Noel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryan Keith Noel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to conduct discovery an d his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (201 8 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 22 53(c)(1)(B) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stand ard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Noel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
* 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 C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10067 Summary Calendar

GLORIA ANNETTE FORD Plaintiff-Appellant v. MEDICAL CENTER OF MESQUITE; TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

3-07-cv-0678-L
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gloria Annette Ford, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of claims that she brought but failed to prosecute, even after ample warnings from the court. She provides no grounds on which the district court erred and therefore the judgment of that court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 10, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000883

10-OCT-2014

08:32 AM
#### Bernardo Gonzalez, Appellant, v Prudential Lines, Inc., Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on April 6, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the issue of *543damages only, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the motion for a new trial on the issue of damages is granted unless defendant, within 20 days after service upon its attorney of a copy of the order herein, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to an increase of the verdict in plaintiffs favor to $150,000 and to the entry of a judgment in accordance therewith. If defendant so stipulates, the order appealed from is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be inadequate to the extent indicated. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose R. Guandique, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered October 9, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 *737US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Keeper, JJ., concur.
#### MURRAY, Respondent, v. NORTH RIVER ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Ellen E. Murray, as administratrix, against the North River Electric Light *&*Power Company and another. O. I. Taylor, for appellants. H. D. Cohen, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from the condensed balance
sheet as of June 30, 1999, and the condensed statement of operations for the six
months ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         675,916
<SECURITIES>                                   137,648
<RECEIVABLES>                                  258,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                    65,000
<INVENTORY>                                    626,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,747,676
<PP&E>                                       2,153,035
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,507,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,627,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,263,085
<BONDS>                                         45,281
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          650,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,492
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,313,397)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,627,477
<SALES>                                        832,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,672,999
<CGS>                                          687,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,381,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,100,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,092,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,889,756)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,889,756)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,889,756)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</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. 00-10493 

Conference Calendar

 

LORENZO MENDOZA-MEDINA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ANTHONY MEDELLIN, BSCC Airpark Unit,

Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CV-92-C

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lorenzo Mendoza-Medina (Mendoza), federal prisoner # 85707-

080, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition. Mendoza argues that he should be allowed to

challenge alleged sentencing errors in a § 2241 petition because

a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion would be barred by the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year limitations

period. He also argues that the district court’s refusal to

entertain a § 2241 petition is a violation of the Suspension
No. 00-10493

-2-

Clause because it prevents a first-time review on the merits of

his claims. See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2.

The district court properly dismissed Mendoza’s § 2241

petition. He was sentenced in the district court for the Western

District of Texas. He filed his § 2241 petition in the district

court for the Northern District of Texas. Mendoza attempts to

circumvent the AEDPA’s limitations period for § 2255 motions by

characterizing his pleading as a § 2241 petition. Nevertheless,

§ 2255 is the proper remedy for Mendoza’s claims because he

alleges errors that occurred at sentencing, not errors in the

execution of the sentence. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683

(5th Cir. 1997). Only the court that sentenced Mendoza (the

district court for the Western District of Texas) would have had

jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion. See id. 

The AEDPA’s one-year limitations period does not render

Mendoza’s § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Pack v.

Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the oneyear limitations period does not violate the Suspension Clause

even if it forecloses a first-time movant from review of his

claims. See Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir.)

(§ 2254), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 504 (1999). Accordingly, the

district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED.
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
 Natural Products Utilization Research: Oxford, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Location Research Units
                        National Sedimentation Laboratory
                                    Natural Products Utilization Research Unit
                                    Water Quality and Ecology Research Unit
                                    Watershed Physical Processes Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Oxford, Mississippi Natural Products Utilization Research People & Locations







Jessie Linda Robertson
                        Natural Products Utilization Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (662) 915-1069
                        
                        
                        Fax: (662) 915-1035(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