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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,166,577
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      84,597,002
<DEPRECIATION>                            (53,347,242)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,373,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     49,189,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,373,306
<SALES>                                     20,638,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,818,593
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,821,889
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,513,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05772-RJH Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05772-RJH Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05772-RJH Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05772-RJH Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05772-RJH Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 5 of 5
exv10w03



 






Exhibit 10.03




ACTION REQUIRED: Must be returned to Financial Benefits (E1N) by December 16, 2005




2006 ELECTIVE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT



VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION



DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Pursuant to the Valero Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”):
	 ̈	 	I elect not to participate in the Plan during 2006.
	 ̈	 	I hereby elect
to defer a portion of my compensation for the period commencing
January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2006 

as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Salary (elect either 1 or 2)
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	1.	 	 	___% (in even 1% increments not to exceed 30%) of the regular salary to which I may become entitled;
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	2.	 	 	$_____  per pay period of the regular salary to which I may become entitled with respect to (check either (a) or (b) below):
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	(a)   ___all pay periods during the Plan Year
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	(b)   ___the following pay periods (specify):
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 


	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 


	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 


	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Bonus (elect either 3 or 4 for bonus earned in 2006 and possibly payable in 2007)
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	3.	 	 	___% (in even 1% increments not to exceed 50%) of any cash bonuses to which I may become entitled;
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	4.	 	 	$___of any cash bonuses to which I may become entitled.





NOTE: The Company has taken measures to design the Plan in a manner that conforms to current
tax law. However, it is possible that new legislation could affect your deferral elections. Your
2006 Plan Year deferral elections are irrevocable, and such deferral elections are governed by the
terms and conditions of the Plan; however, in order to comply with federal legislation, the Company
may modify the Plan or implement a new plan. Your selections will be subject to modifications made
to the Plan to conform with federal legislation or to the terms of another plan if the Company
chooses to implement a new plan to conform to federal legislation. The Committee may reduce the
amount you have elected to defer above, or such deferral elections may be rendered null and void if
necessary to comply with federal income tax law (including applicable regulations) regarding
nonqualified deferred compensation plans.



ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

I hereby authorize the above amounts to be deducted and deferred through payroll
deduction/reduction by the Company.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	Participant’s Signature

	 	Date
	 
	 	 
	«First Name» «Last Name»

	 	«Emplid»
	 

	 	 
	Participant’s Name

	 	Participant’s Employee ID Number
## Breadcrumb

-  about 
-  Congressional 

#           Congressional Contacts      

-  About 
-  About Us 
-  Survey Manual 
-  Key Officials 
-  Organization 
-  Congressional     -  Briefing Series 
  -  Official Statements 
  -  Contacts 
-  Budget 
-  Careers and Employees 
-  Doing Business 
-  Emergency Management 
-  Documents 
-  Emergency Management Resources 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our Congressional Liaison Office, cong_liaison@usgs.gov or 703-648-4455.

Contact Us

                      -  - Jeffrey OnizukCongressional Liaison OfficerCommunications and PublishingEnergy and Minerals Mission AreaCore Science Systems Mission AreaEmailjonizuk@usgs.govPhone703-648-4242 
- Chris TrentCongressional LiaisonCommunications and PublishingEcosystems Mission AreaEmailctrent@usgs.govPhone703-648-4451 
- Alica GarrisonAdministrative SpecialistEmailagarrison@usgs.govPhone703-648-4582
Case 1:07-cv-01521-AKH Document 20 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01521-AKH Document 20 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01521-AKH Document 20 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 791 

To prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from limiting the amount 

of Urban Area Security Initiative or State Homeland Security Grant 

Program grant funds that may be used to pay salaries or overtime 

pay of law enforcement officials engaged in antiterrorism activities, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2009 

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from limiting the amount of Urban Area Security Initiative or 

State Homeland Security Grant Program grant funds 

that may be used to pay salaries or overtime pay of 

law enforcement officials engaged in antiterrorism activities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Responder Fund5 ing Modernization Act of 2009’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 791 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS FOR 

2 SALARIES OR OVERTIME PAY OF LAW EN3 FORCEMENT OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN 

4 ANTITERRORISM ACTIVITIES. 

5 (a) LIMITATION ON USE PROHIBITED.—The Depart6 ment of Homeland Security may not limit the amount of 

7 covered grant funds that may be used to pay salaries or 

8 overtime pay of law enforcement officials engaged in 

9 antiterrorism activities. 

10 (b) TREATMENT IN RANKING PROPOSED USES.—In 

11 evaluating the anticipated effectiveness of proposed uses 

12 of covered grant funds for purposes of determining eligi13 bility for or the amount of a covered grant, the Depart14 ment of Homeland Security (including any peer reviewer 

15 acting on behalf of the Department) shall treat a proposed 

16 use for salaries and overtime pay of law enforcement offi17 cials engaged in antiterrorism activities as at least as ef18 fective as all other proposed uses. 

19 (c) COVERED GRANT FUNDS DEFINED.—In this sec20 tion the term ‘‘covered grant funds’’ means grant funds 

21 provided under the Urban Area Security Initiative or the 

22 State Homeland Security Grant Program. 

23 (d) APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply with 

24 respect to any grant awarded before the date of the enact25 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-05489-KMW Document 8 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05489-KMW Document 8 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05489-KMW Document 8 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05489-KMW Document 8 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 4 of 4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICKY RENARD TODD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50455

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00396-VBF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Ricky Renard Todd appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 162-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We dismiss.

FILED

MAY 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50455

Todd contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing and

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The government argues that the

appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant

has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981

(9th Cir. 2009).

Under the terms of Todd’s binding plea agreement, he waived the right to

appeal “any sentence imposed by the Court,” and “the manner in which the

sentence is determined,” provided that the sentence fell within the stipulated range,

as it did here. Todd contends that he is nonetheless entitled to bring this appeal

because he reserved the right to appeal based on explicitly retroactive changes to

the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and statutes. This argument fails because

under the terms of the waiver, a challenge based on such retroactive changes may

be made only by way of a post-conviction collateral attack. Because the waiver

applies and is enforceable, we dismiss. See id. at 988.

DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                Exhibit 10.S


                               FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
                                HUFFY CORPORATION
                        SUPPLEMENTAL/EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN
                        --------------------------------


       WHEREAS, Huffy Corporation (the "Sponsor") maintains the Huffy
Corporation Supplemental/Excess Benefit Plan (the "Plan"), effective January 1,
1988, as amended; and

       WHEREAS, the Sponsor desires to amend the Plan;

       NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor adopts the following amendments to the Plan.

       1. Effective September 5, 1994, Section III of the Plan shall be amended
so as to provide Harry A. Shaw III the "Rule of 85", in accordance with the
terms of Section 5 of the Transition Compensation Agreement between Harry A.
Shaw and the Sponsor, dated as of February 15, 1993.

       2. Effective April 24, 1995, Section III of the Plan shall be amended so
as to provide John L. Mariotti ("Mariotti") the benefit credit under the Plan
set forth in Section 3.b. of a SETTLEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE between the
Sponsor and Mariotti, dated April 24, 1995.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor has caused this instrument to be executed
as of this 26th day of May, 1995.

                                      HUFFY CORPORATION


                                      By    /s/ Nancy A. Michaud
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Nancy A. Michaud
                                           Vice President - General Counsel
                                           and Secretary
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20752 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS ORNELAS-LEZA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-96-14-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Ornelas-Leza appeals the sentence imposed subsequent to his plea of guilty to reentry into the United States after deportation. He argues that the court erred in denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. It was not clear error for the district court to deny the reduction for acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3).
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 30 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH Document 4 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 6 of 6
## Breadcrumb

-  Florence Bascom Geoscience Center 
-  Science 

# Hazards

Watch Video

-  Home 
-    Science    -  Paleoclimate and Paleoecology 
  -  Landscape Science 
  -  Geologic Mapping 
  -  Hazards 
  -  Special Geologic Studies 
  -  Technical Capabilities 
  -  Science Topics 
-  Data 
-  Maps 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  Software 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

These projects provide geologic information important to understanding hazards such as flooding, landslides, earthquakes, and sinkholes. Every year in the United States, natural hazard events threaten lives and livelihoods, resulting in deaths and billions of dollars in damage. Our projects work with many partners to monitor, assess, and conduct targeted research on these natural hazards.

## Browse Topics

Climate Hazards

Earthquake Hazards

Landslides

link

June 4, 2019

####                 Appalachian Basin Geologic Mapping Project              

Core Science Systems Mission Area, Water Resources Mission Area, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

link

June 4, 2019

####   Appalachian Basin Geologic Mapping Project

Learn More

link

March 28, 2019

####                 Sea Level and Storm Hazards: Past and Present              

Climate Research and Development Program, Florence Bascom Geoscience Center, Deep Sea Exploration, Mapping and Characterization

link

March 28, 2019

####   Sea Level and Storm Hazards: Past and Present

Learn More

link

September 11, 2018

####                 Coastal Basement Geology of the Southeastern U.S. Project              

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

link

September 11, 2018

####   Coastal Basement Geology of the Southeastern U.S. Project

Learn More

link

July 27, 2018

####                 Geologic Framework for Seismic Hazards in Central Virginia              

Natural Hazards Mission Area, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, Florence Bascom Geoscience Center, Geologic Hazards Science Center, Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

link

July 27, 2018

####   Geologic Framework for Seismic Hazards in Central Virginia

Learn More
## UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

COOK

, CAMPANELLA, and HAIGHT Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant LONZELL J. THREATS United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20110187

Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Ass ault) and Fort Campbell

Timothy Grammel, Military Judge Lieutenant Colonel Joseph P. Morse, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain Ian M. Guy, JA (on reply brief); Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Jonatha n F. Potter, JA; Captain Ian M. Guy, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; Major Catherine L. Brantley, JA; Captain Jessica J. Morales, JA (on brief).

17 October 201 3

--- ---------- -- ----- ------------- ----------------------- -------- - SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON RECONSIDERATION

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

Per Curi a m :

A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted appellant, contrary to his p leas, of rape, robbery, forcible sodomy, aggravated assault, assault consummated by a battery, and kidnapping, in violation of Articles 120, 122, 125, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 922, 925, 928, 934 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for fifty years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E

- 1. The convening authority awarded appellant 175 days of confine ment credit.

On 4 September 2013, we issued an opinion in this case wherein we set aside Charge VI and its Specification and affirmed the remaining findings of guilty. We

then reassessed the sentence in accordance with the principles of United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Moffeit , 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include the factors identified by Judge Baker in his concurring opinion,THREA TS

— ARMY 20110 187

2

and affirmed the approved sentence. See United States v. Threats , ARMY 2011 0187,

201 3 WL 4875669 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 4 Sept. 2013) (sum m . disp.),

On 3 October 2013, appellant asked this court to reconsider our opinion

issued on 4 September 201 3 based on additional matters submitted by appellant

pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982)

. Appellant’s request for reconsideration is granted and we have now considered appellant’s

additional Grostefon matters in our reconsideration of this case

. We find these

matters to be without merit.

Therefore, i n consonance with our original opinion i n this case, we again set aside Charge VI and its Specification and AFFIRM the remaining findings of guilty. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the original error noted, the entire record, and in accordance with the princi ples of Sales and Moffeit

, to include the factors identified by Judge Baker in his concurring opinion in Moffeit , the court AFFIRMS the approved sentence.

FOR THE COURT:

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
EXHIBIT 31.1

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Fred G. Kowal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact 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 consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures ( as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)
for the Registrant and we have:

> a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, 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 Registrant's disclosure 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 changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's
> ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
> 
> b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2003

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                   Certification of Periodic Financial Reports

I, G. Darcy Klug, of Omni Energy Services Corp., certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
         30, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of Omni Energy Services Corp.


Dated:  August 14, 2003


                                                /s/ G. Darcy Klug
                                                -------------------------------
                                                G. Darcy Klug
                                                Chief Financial Officer