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

<ARTICLE> 5

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS             6-MOS            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-2000        DEC-31-2000      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-2000        JUN-30-2000      DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          171,680            171,680           235,133
<SECURITIES>                          0                  0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                         0                  0                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                          0                  0                 0
<INVENTORY>                           0                  0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0                  0                 0
<PP&E>                                0                  0                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                        0                  0                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  171,680            171,680           235,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           547,228            547,228           609,977
<BONDS>                               0                  0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                  0                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0                  0                 0
<COMMON>                              0                  0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                     (375,548)          (375,548)         (374,844)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    171,680            171,680           235,133
<SALES>                               0                  0                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    530              1,774                 0
<CGS>                                 0                  0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0                  0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 15,373             30,978                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0                  0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0                  0                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (14,843)           (29,204)                0
<INCOME-TAX>                          0                  0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              28,500             28,500                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0                  0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                  0                 0
<CHANGES>                             0                  0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     13,657               (704)                0
<EPS-BASIC>                         0                  0                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0                  0                 0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.5**

**DEGOLYERAND MACNAUGHTON**

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800 EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 29, 2014 

Mtro. Emilio R. LozoyaAustin 

Director General 

Petróleos Mexicanos 

Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329 

Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44

Colonia Petróleos Mexicanos 

11311 México,D.F. México 

Dear Mtro. Lozoya Austin: 

We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings “Presentation of Information ConcerningReserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – Exploration and Production – Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third party report dated March 20, 2014, describing our review of the estimates of provedoil and condensate, natural gas liquids, sales gas, and total liquids equivalent reserves owned by the United Mexican States (Mexico) as of January 1, 2014, for certain fields located offshore of Mexico in the Southwest Marine Region. Theseestimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules 4-10(a) (l)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Dear 

CFTC STAFF INTERPRETATIVE 

LETTER# 7~-~ 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

1120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N. W. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 

February 13, 1976 

.. 

Re: Approval of Cash Rules Pursuant to 

Section 5a(l2) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

This is in response to your letters of September 17, 

1975, and January 5, 1976, in which you submitted, pursuant 

to section 5a(l2) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended 

("Act"), proposed amendments to Board of Tr.ade of Kansas City, 

Missouri, Inc. ("Exchange") Rules 1710. 24 and 17 23 and the · proposed d'e1etion of Chapter 26 from the Exchange's rules. 

All of the rules in question herein appear to relate exclusively to cash commodity transactions, rather than commodity 

futures t'ransactions. Rules 1710.24 and 1723 relate to 

shipping terms in contracts for cash sales of grain; Chapter 26 of·the E':x:change's rules relates to the regulation of the 

employment ·and use by Exchange members. of non-member solicitors and brokers in cash rather than futures transactions. 

In your letter of January 5, 1976, you question 

"whether, absent manipulation (actual or attempted), the 

CFTC h~s statutory authority to approve or disapprove rule 

changes, . such as this, in the cash sector." As you are 

aware, the Commission's Advisory Committee on Market 

Regulation is considering the scope of section 5a(l2) of 

the Act. ·After reviewing the report and recommendation of 

the AdvisQry Committee, the Commission will be making its 

determinatibn with respect to the scope of section 5a(l2). 

At that time, the Commission may decide whether the scope 

of section 5a(l2) covers cash market rules. 
.' 'r 

- 2 -

Because of the uncertainty of this issue, the 

Division has determined that it will not recommend to the 

Commission· at this time that it review for approval or disapproval, pursuant to section Sa(l2) of the Act, those contract market rules relating exclusively to the cash market. 

Nor will the Division recommend that the Commission institute 

.enforcement action against a contract market for failure to 

submit .such cash market rules for Commission approval, should 

it later be determined by the Commission that cash market 

rules are within the scope of section Sa(l2) of the Act. 

Nevertheless, ·contract market rules relating to cash transactions must be submitted to the Commission pursuant to 

section 5a(l) of the Act. 

Very truly yours, --~.;::r 

/ ~~?(;' ) ~ ·~ •I~ ..:.....------ ~_....-., ' /-:.___ 

Thomas A.,·. Russo 

Director 

Division of Trading and Markets
Sheldon Peters WOLFCHILD, et al., petitioners, v. REDWOOD COUNTY, MINNESOTA, et al.

No. 16-286.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Nina Eva HAJDA, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al.

No. 15-9481.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied.
```

[Federal Register: October 26, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 57108]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26oc98-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, November 30, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-28768 Filed 10-22-98; 4:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. 07-14-00444-CV

Paul Edward Hudson

Appellant

v.

Dallas County, et al.

Appellees §

§

§

§ From the 193rd District Court

of Dallas County

October 14, 2015

Opinion by Justice Campbell

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated October 14, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
FORM 10-Q
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Frank J. Bilban, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encore Wire Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have;
a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared; b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):
 

 

FORM 10-Q
a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004      /s/ FRANK J. BILBAN      Frank J. Bilban   *Vice President – Finance, Chief Financial*   *Officer, Treasurer and Secretary*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33029-33030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15482]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 099-0038; FRL-7000-1]


Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Revising the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan, Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 
and Pinal County Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 33030]]


ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing direct final approval of the recision of 
rules from the Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control District 
(PGCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 
were published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21675).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published on May 1, 2001 is 
withdrawn as of June 20, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office, Air 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21727), EPA proposed 
to approve the recision of various PGCAQCD rules from the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). On the same day (66 FR 21675), EPA also 
published a direct final rule approving the recision of these rules 
from the SIP. The action provided a 30 day public comment period and 
explained that if we received adverse comments, we would withdraw the 
relevant direct final action.
    We did receive adverse comments, and are therefore withdrawing the 
direct final recision of all of the rules. We are not opening an 
additional comment period. We intend to finalize action on these rules 
based on the May 1, 2001 proposed action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 6, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-15482 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN REGISTRANT'S
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
                                              
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         688,716    
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               806,440
<PP&E>                                          15,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,605,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          199,867
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       106,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,378,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,605,357
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,835,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               200,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,045,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,045,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,045,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.22)










</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Lee BIG LAKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30407.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

*299Lori Anne Harper Suek, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark S. Werner, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Big Lake’s motion for new counsel. *See United States v. Mendez-Sanchez,*563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.2009). First, the motion wasn’t timely. The judge had already granted Big Lake’s prior motion for new counsel, the motion was made less than two weeks before trial and any newly appointed attorney would have required a sixth continuance. *See id.*(motion for new counsel untimely where defendant “made the motion little more than two weeks before trial” and “new counsel, if permitted, would have required additional time to prepare”); *see also United States v. Roston,*986 F.2d 1287, 1292 (9th Cir.1993) (motion for new counsel untimely where defendant waited until two weeks before trial and “had been through three attorneys, and he was asking for a fourth”). Second, the judge’s inquiry was adequate because he heard from both counsel and Big Lake about their relationship and thus had “a sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision.” *United States v. McClendon,*782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir.1986). Third, Big Lake hasn’t shown that “the asserted conflict was so great as to result in a complete breakdown in communication and a consequent inability to present a defense.” *Mendez-Sanchez,*563 F.3d at 942. Counsel put on an effective defense through cross-examination, and it was Big Lake who “unilaterally cut[ ]-off communication” despite counsel’s repeated attempts to meet with him. *United States v. Smith,*282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th Cir.2002); *see also Roston,*986 F.2d at 1293 (denial of motion for substitution of counsel upheld where de*300fendant “attempted to use [his] refusal to communicate to get a new lawyer”).

The district judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing Big Lake to 400 months, a guideline sentence, because the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

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






Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment to the Executive Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") effective as of January 1, 2016, is hereby made by and between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Michael P. McMasters (the "Executive").




Background Information


     The parties to this Amendment (the "Parties") entered into the Agreement dated as of January 14, 2011, as amended, regarding the Executive's employment relationship with the Company.  The Parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the extension of the Current Term, as defined therein, for a period of two years, subject to further extension each year thereafter, as provided in the Agreement.  




Agreement


In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:


1.    The first sentence of Section 2.b of the Agreement shall be revised to read as follows:  “Subject to Paragraph 2(c), the Current Term of this Agreement shall extend through December 31, 2017, subject to further extension as provided below.”


2.    All other provisions of the Agreement, as previously amended, shall remain unchanged.




	
				
	 
	 
	CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 
	 

	[CORPORATE SEAL]
	 
	By:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	ATTEST:
	 
	Title:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Date:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EXECUTIVE:

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Date:
Roger Francel EVANS, petitioner, v. Shawn MILLION, Warden.

No. 16-6178.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
tse_EX_10-3



			

					

						 


					

					

						 


				
	

					

						


					

					

						Exhibit 10.3


					

						 


					

						Trinseo S.A.


					

						4, rue Lou Hemmer


					

						L-1748 Luxembourg – Findel


					

						Grand Duchy of Luxembourg


				









		
			 
		

		


		
			March 3, 2016
		

		
			 
		

		
			Mr. Christopher D. Pappas
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear Mr. Pappas:
		

		
			 
		

		
			RE: Definition of Retirement for Purposes of Equity Awards under 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "Plan")
		

		
			 
		

		
			This letter confirms that the following definition of "Retirement" is applicable to all Stock Options granted to you under the Plan to date and in the future unless otherwise notified:
		

		
			 
		

		
			"Retirement" means (i) a termination of Optionee's Employment by the Company (or its subsidiaries) other than for Cause; (ii) a termination of Optionee's Employment by the Optionee with "good reason" (with such term having the meaning ascribed thereto in the employment agreement between the Optionee and the Company, or its subsidiaries) ("Good Reason") for so long as such agreement is in effect, or (iii) a termination of Optionee's Employment by the Optionee without Good Reason where the Optionee provides the Company with at least 12 months notice of the termination.
		

		
			 
		

		
			This letter confirms that the following definition of "Retirement" is applicable to all Restricted Stock Units granted to you under the Plan to date and in the future unless otherwise notified:
		

		
			 
		

		
			"Retirement" means (i) a termination of Grantee's Employment by the Company (or its subsidiaries) other than for Cause; (ii) a termination of Grantee's Employment by the Grantee with "good reason" (with such term having the meaning ascribed thereto in the employment agreement between the Grantee and the Company, or its subsidiaries) ("Good Reason") for so long as such agreement is in effect, or (iii) a termination of Grantee's Employment by the Grantee without Good Reason where the Grantee provides the Company with at least 12 months notice of the termination.
		

		
			 
		

		
			**
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Trinseo S.A.

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Stephen Zide

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Name:

					
					
						Stephen Zide

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title:

					
					
						Director
No. 577, Misc.

#### Hamilton *v.*Ragen, Warden.

Circuit Court of Saline County and Supreme Court of Illinois.

Certiorari denied.
Cyrus F. SARVESTANEY, petitioner, v. Lisa Arlene SARVESTANEY.

No. 16-5742.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa denied.