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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          31,112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                       784
<INVENTORY>                                      5,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,935
<PP&E>                                         419,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                 109,805
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 372,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,249
<BONDS>                                        176,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   372,839
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,629
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  106,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,965
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,030
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (27,007)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,977)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (10.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (10.74)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.40 - 2021 Fiscal Year



		

			 

		


		

			 

		


		

			 

		


		

			EXHIBIT 10.40

		




		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			ANTERIX, INC.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			AMENDMENT NO. 1 
		

		
			TO
		

		
			2014 STOCK PLAN
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			The 2014 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) of Anterix, Inc. (the “Company”) is hereby amended effective as of June 14, 2021 by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors in accordance with Section 18 of the Plan as follows:
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			WHEREAS, Section 4.2 of the Plan currently provides that the maximum aggregate number of shares of common stock that may be issued under the Plan shall automatically increase on each January 1st from January 1, 2015 through and including January 1, 2024 (the “Evergreen Provision”).
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Plan and the Evergreen Provision, the maximum number of shares of common stock that may be issued under the Plan pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Plan has increased from 1,200,000 shares to a maximum of 5,027,201 shares of common stock as of the effective date of this Amendment No. 1 to 2014 Stock Plan.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to eliminate the Evergreen Provision for years after January 1, 2021.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			1.Amendment to Section 4.2: Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with the following as of the effective date of this Amendment No. 1 to 2014 Stock Plan:
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			“4.2Reserved.”
		

		
			﻿
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2394 Engrossed in House (EH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2394

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To reauthorize the National Forest Foundation Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Forest Foundation 
Reauthorization Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

    (a) Extension of Authority To Provide Matching Funds for 
Administrative and Project Expenses.--Section 405(b) of the National 
Forest Foundation Act (16 U.S.C. 583j-3(b)) is amended by striking 
``for a period of five years beginning October 1, 1992'' and inserting 
``during fiscal years 2016 through 2018''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 410(b) of the 
National Forest Foundation Act (16 U.S.C. 583j-8(b)) is amended by 
striking ``during the five-year period'' and all that follows through 
``$1,000,000 annually'' and inserting ``there are authorized to be 
appropriated $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2018''.
    (c) Technical Corrections.--
            (1) Agent.--Section 404(b) of the National Forest 
        Foundation Act (16 U.S.C. 583j-2(b)) is amended by striking 
        ``under this paragraph'' and inserting ``by subsection 
        (a)(4)''.
            (2) Annual report.--Section 407(b) of the National Forest 
        Foundation Act (16 U.S.C. 583j-5(b)) is amended by striking the 
        comma after ``The Foundation shall''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2394

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To reauthorize the National Forest Foundation Act, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
# L_2011209DE.01006301.xml

| 17.8.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 209/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 209/63

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses 2010/320/EU des Rates vom 8. Juni 2010 gerichtet an Griechenland zwecks Ausweitung und Intensivierung der haushaltspolitischen Überwachung und zur Inverzugsetzung Griechenlands mit der Maßgabe, die zur Beendigung des übermäßigen Defizits als notwendig erachteten Maßnahmen zu treffen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 145 vom 11. Juni 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 145 vom 11. Juni 2010

In der Inhaltsübersicht auf der Titelseite und Seite 6, Titel:

anstatt:

„Beschluss des Rates vom 8. Juni 2010 gerichtet an Griechenland ...“

muss es heißen:

„Beschluss des Rates vom 10. Mai 2010 gerichtet an Griechenland ...“.

Seite 11, Schlussformel zu Ort und Datum der Annahme:

anstatt:

„Geschehen zu Luxemburg am 8. Juni 2010.“

muss es heißen:

„Geschehen zu Brüssel am 10. Mai 2010.“

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant

vs.

BENJAMIN VERRETT,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Docket Number 2023-0433

Enforcement Activity No. 7765940

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: December 20, 2023

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Appearances:

Liam McDonnell

Sector New Orleans

For the Coast Guard

Benjamin Verrett, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about December 11, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval 

of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated December 20, 2023, at

Alameda, California

 _____________________

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
# C_2021027EN.01000901.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/9

---

Notice for the attention of a person to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt apply

(2021/C 27/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mrs Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar who appears in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt.

The Council has received information from the Egyptian authorities that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures. The abovementioned person is hereby informed that she may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding her designation, before 1 February 2021, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

In this regard, the attention of the person concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 270/2011.

---

(1)  OJ L 76 22.3.2011, p. 63.

(2)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6505

LORD VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Coward, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

E.E. WRIGHT, JR., Chief Warden, 

 Defendant – Appellee, 

 and 

RUFUS FLEMING, Eastern Regional Director; J.K. VAUGHAN, 

Inmate Hearing Officer; TRACY S. RAY, Chief Warden; RONALD 

T. COKER, Department of Corrections Liaison, 

 Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cv-00768-RLW) 

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lord Versatile, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Larry Fitzgerald, 

James R. Morgan, Jr., Robert T. Numbers, II, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, 

SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, William 
Michael Holm, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, James Bennett 

Kinsel, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Tysons Corner, 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Lord Versatile appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Versatile v. Wright, No. 3:05-cv-00768-RLW (E.D. Va. 

Feb. 23, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JERMAINE SMITH,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 450 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

COLIN BRIAN SMITH, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0401

Enforcement Activity Number: 7786234

ORDER WITHDRAWING THE COAST GUARD’S COMPLAINT

Issued: January 26, 2024

By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

Abigail Wellman

USCG Sector Delaware Bay

For the Respondent

Colin Brian Smith, Pro se
2

ORDER WITHDRAWING THE COAST GUARD’S COMPLAINT

The United States Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay (Coast Guard) initiated this 

administrative proceeding by issuing a Complaint on November 30, 2023, seeking to revoke 

Colin Brian Smith’s (Respondent) Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) for use of, or addiction 

to the use of dangerous drugs in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b) and 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent took a required pre-employment drug test 

pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part 16 on July 24, 2023, in which his urine specimen tested positive for 

marijuana metabolites (THCA).1

Also on November 30, 2023, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement.

2

 Subsequently 

in an email to the Coast Guard on January 2, 2024, Respondent advised that he was voluntarily 

surrendering his license, and on January 4, 2024 he completed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement

in accordance with 46 C.F.R. § 5.203.

On January 24, 2024, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal, withdrawing its 

Complaint in this administrative proceeding in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 20.311(a)(2). The 

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter. See 33 C.F.R. § 20.311(b). 

On January 25, 2024, this case was assigned to me. I note the Coast Guard’s Notice of 

Withdrawal pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 20.311(a)(2) may not require approval by an administrative 

law judge, as Respondent has not served a responsive pleading. Nonetheless, upon consideration 

of the record, I approve the withdrawal of the Coast Guard’s Complaint against Respondent.

1 The Complaint was served upon Respondent on November 30, 2023, but it was not filed with the ALJ Docketing 

Center until January 24, 2024. 

2 Although the parties signed a Settlement Agreement on November 30, 2023, the document was never submitted 

for approval. Because the Coast Guard is withdrawing this administrative proceeding, the Settlement Agreement is 

now moot. 
3

WHEREFORE, the Coast Guard’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, that is, 

the Coast Guard may file a new Complaint in this matter. Further, this matter is WITHRAWN

from the ALJ Docket. 

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated January 26, 2024

New York, NY 

____________________________________

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
C'NITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARThlEYT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UkITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD * * Docket No. 08-0074-PAF-98ST.L 

* 

VS. * 

* 

GREGORY LEE PERIMAN * ORDER * 

* .................................. 

The Coast Guard's Motion for Dismissal is HEREBY GRANTED and this case is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Respondent's Coast Guard license is to be returned to him 

immediately. 

Administrative Law ~ud~84 

Done and Dated April /& 2001 

Norfolk, Virginia 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that 1 have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon the following 

parties and limited participants (or designated representatives) in this proceeding at the address 

indicated by Facsimile: 

Marine Safety Office St. Louis 

LT. C.T. O'Neil 

1222 Spruce Street, Ste. 8.104E 

St. Louis, MO 63103-2835 

Fax: 314-539-2659 

J. Mac Morgan, Esq. 

3 18 Lake Marine Avenue, Suite 2 17 

New Orleans, LA 70124 

Fax: 504-288-6833 

Edward M. Gleason, Jr., Esq. 

1920 L. Street, N.W. Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20036 

Fax: 202-783-6088 

Lucinda H. Shinault, CLA 

Legal Assistant to the Administrative Law Judge 

Done and Dated April /d .2001 

Norfolk, Virginia
# C_2021483EN.01000201.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 483/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 483/2

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.10319 – Greiner/Recticel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 483/02)

On 24 November 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.10319 — Greiner/Recticel, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ’Merger Regulation’).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6505

LORD VERSATILE, a/k/a Venson Coward,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

E.E. WRIGHT, JR., Chief Warden,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

RUFUS FLEMING, Eastern Regional Director; J.K. VAUGHAN, Inmate Hearing Officer; TRACY S. RAY, Chief Warden; RONALD T. COKER, Department of Corrections Liaison,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cv-00768-RLW)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lord Versatile, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Larry Fitzgerald, James R. Morgan, Jr., Robert T. Numbers, II, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, WilliamMichael Holm, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, James Bennett Kinsel, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

Lord Versatile appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Versatile v. Wright , No. 3:05-cv-00768-RLW (E.D. Va.

Feb. 23, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Dorothy Y. Copeland and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v Weyerhaeuser Company et al., Respondents. Kenneth J. Hemming and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v United States Gypsum Company et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: Special Term properly denied plaintiffs’ motions for permission to amend their complaints to assert causes of action for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and deceptive business practices. Because plaintiffs, in their proposed complaint, have not alleged that they were in privity with defendants, they may not recover on a claim of breach of implied warranty *(see, Jaffee Assoc. v Bilsco Auto. Serv.,*89 AD2d 785, *affd*58 NY2d 993; *see also, Miller v General Motors Corp.,*99 AD2d 454, *affd*64 NY2d 1081).

The proposed cause of action for breach of express warranty is insufficient because of failure to set forth the terms of the warranty upon which plaintiffs rely. A complaint for breach of contract must allege the provisions of the contract upon which the claim is based *(Bomser v Moyle,*89 AD2d 202; *Shields v School of Law,*77 AD2d 867; *Lupinski v Village of Ilion,*59 AD2d 1050).

Finally, the proposed cause of action for deceptive business *999practices is defective for failure to allege any acts of plaintiffs after June 19, 1980 (the effective date of the deceptive business practice provision of the General Business Law) in reliance upon the alleged deceptive representation *(see, Hemming v Certainteed Corp.,*97 AD2d 976, *appeal dismissed*61 NY2d 758). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — amend complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### Kewal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75703.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

*761Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kewal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court reviews questions of law de novo. *Kohli v. Gonzales,*473 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2007). Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Singh’s contention that the IJ lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Notice to Appear did not include the title of the signing officer is without merit. *See Kohli v. Gonzales,*473 F.3d 1061, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2007).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that Singh failed to demonstrate persecution on account of an enumerated ground, considering that Singh repeatedly testified that the Indian police targeted him because of his perceived wealth. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-484, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, Singh is not eligible for asylum.

Because Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Padash v. INS,*358 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s CAT claim because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

*762PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.