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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SHEFFIELD
STEEL AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                       873
<INVENTORY>                                     36,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,964
<PP&E>                                          65,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,863
<BONDS>                                        117,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,026
<SALES>                                        136,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,594
<CGS>                                          109,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   215
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    943
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                943
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (8,023)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,080)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.93)
        

</TABLE>
ex_138282.htm


EXHIBIT 10.18


 


 


COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS


 


 


On March 11, 2019, (i) the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") approved the 2019 Executive Compensation Plan for our President and Chief Executive Officer, James Pelrin, and our Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., and (ii) the Board approved grants of restricted stock to our non-employee directors (as defined below) under the Company’s Amended and Restated 2014 Stock Plan.  The details of the 2019 Executive Compensation Plan and the restricted stock grants to non-employee directors were previously disclosed on our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 15, 2019, and are incorporated herein by reference.



In addition, each of our executive officers receives our standard benefits package. Messrs. Pelrin and Regan are also parties to Change of Control Agreements with the Company that provide for the payment of certain benefits upon the executive's termination of employment following a change of control, as defined therein.



Directors who are not also our officers (each a "non-employee director") currently receive an annual retainer of $25,000 (Steven J. Abrams, Esq., Joseph W. Dews IV, William Kraut and Robert E. Matthiessen). The Board Chairman is paid an additional annual retainer of $40,000 (Mr. Matthiessen) and the Lead Independent Director is paid an additional annual retainer of $10,000 (Mr. Kraut). The Chair of each of the committees of the Board are paid an additional annual fee as follows: the Chair of the Audit Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $20,000 (Mr. Kraut); the Chair of the Compensation Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $10,000 (Mr. Dews); and the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $10,000 (Mr. Abrams). The members of the committees, other than the Chair, are paid additional annual fees as follows: members of the Audit Committee are paid an additional annual fee of $10,000 (Messrs. Abrams and Dews), members of the Compensation Committee are paid an additional annual fee of $5,000 (Messrs. Kraut and Abrams), and members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are paid an additional annual fee of $5,000 (Messrs. Kraut and Dews). In addition, we reimburse non-employee directors' travel expenses and other costs associated with attending Board or committee meetings. We do not pay compensation to our executive officers for their service as directors.
Byron Christopher CHINCHILLA, petitioner, v. Greg LEWIS, Warden.

No. 18-6513.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

p0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

138964 & (25)(26)(27)(28)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138964 COA: 286767 Macomb CC: 04-004313-FC MARTIN CHRISTIAN SORLIEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 12, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The
miscellaneous motions are DENIED.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/20/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      418,381
COMMITMENTS
  77,722  155,592   73,883  242,829  163,575  394,434  393,050   23,947   25,331

CHANGES FROM 11/13/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     35,965)
   9,350   16,417   -1,317   30,510   21,192   38,543   36,292   -2,578     -327

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    18.6     37.2     17.7     58.0     39.1     94.3     93.9      5.7      6.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      179)
      64       59       71       41       38      144      138
```

----

Updated November 26, 2012
* 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. 98-50744

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOE MARTINEZ BUSTAMANTE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CA-520

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner Joe Martinez Bustamante, Jr. appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. COA was

granted on the issue whether Bustamante should be granted an outof-time appeal on the grounds that counsel was ineffective in

failing to prosecute his direct criminal appeal, as was

recommended by the magistrate judge.
No. 98-50744 

-2-

The record demonstrates that counsel’s inaction denied

Bustamante his right to a direct appeal. See U.S. v. Riascos, 76

F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996)(record supported denial-of-appellate

counsel claim when counsel filed notice of appeal but the appeal

was dismissed for lack of prosecution). The Government’s

contention that counsel was not ineffective because Bustamante

ultimately decided to pursue a collateral challenge instead of a

direct appeal is without merit. Counsel’s affidavit acknowledges

that he did not perfect the appeal; it further explains that

Bustamante’s decision to pursue a collateral challenge was made

only after the appeal had been dismissed and was the result of

counsel’s advice to pursue a collateral attack because of the

difficulties involved in reinstating the appeal. As Bustamante

points out, his decision to pursue a collateral challenge on

counsel’s advice after his appeal was dismissed is not evidence

that he had not desired to pursue a direct appeal.

The Government’s argument that Bustamante has not

demonstrated any prejudice is not well-taken. Because Bustamante

has demonstrated a constructive absolute denial of counsel,

prejudice is presumed. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 88

(1988); Sharp v. Puckett, 930 F.2d 450, 451-52 (5th Cir. 1991). 

The district court erred in determining that Bustamante’s denialof-appellate-counsel claim is without merit. Its judgment is

REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

We do not reach the other issues raised in Bustamante’s

brief because the appeal is limited to the issue stated in the
No. 98-50744 

-3-

certificate of appealability. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d

149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

January 16, 2014

No. 13-1218

USA

v.

BRUCE E. COSTA, JR.

(D. Del. No. 1-10-cr-00047-001)

Present: JORDAN, VANASKIE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

Unopposed Motion by Appellant to Amend Opinion filed January 2, 2014.

Respectfully,

Clerk/arl

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing Motion is granted. The January 2, 2014 opinion is vacated. A revised 

opinion and judgment will be entered.

By the Court,

s/ Kent A. Jordan 

Circuit Judge

Dated: January 17, 2014

ARL/cc: SAW; LCW; MDC; JMV
Harry Brett TAYLOR, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 17-1515.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

 

 

The Board of Directors

Helen of Troy Limited

 

We have issued our reports dated May 16, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedule and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Helen of Troy Limited and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2011.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Helen of Troy Limited and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-154525, effective October 21, 2008; File No. 333-154526, effective October 21, 2008; File No. 333-153658, effective September 24, 2008; File No. 333-11181, effective August 30, 1996; File No. 333-67349, effective November 16, 1998; File No. 333-90776, effective June 19, 2002; File No. 333-103825, effective March 14, 2003; and File No. 333-128832, effective October 5, 2005).

 
|   | /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP |
|--------|------------------------|

 

 

Dallas, Texas

May 16, 2011

* *

----
1

Filed 10/10/22 Marriage of Jordan CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Nevada)

----

In re the Marriage of CASSANDRA HELEN 

LEHMAN and TIMOTHY LAWRENCE JORDAN.

C094369

CASSANDRA HELEN LEHMAN JORDAN,

Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY LAWRENCE JORDAN,

Respondent.

(Super. Ct. No. FL14011262)

Cassandra Helen Lehman Jordan, appellant appearing in pro. per., appeals from a

judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. Appellant filed a 53-page opening brief that is 

rambling and irrelevant. Untethered to the principles of law governing the trial court’s 

ruling and the limited scope of appellate review, appellant does little more in her brief 

than express frustration with the family law system, the trial court, and her now exhusband.
2

In a challenge to a judgment, the trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct 

and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority and 

analysis on each point made, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in 

the record, else the argument may be deemed forfeited. (Badie v. Bank of America

(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 

63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 

72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) It is the appellant’s responsibility to support claims of error 

with citation and authority; we are not obligated to perform that function on the 

appellant’s behalf and may treat the contentions as forfeited. (Lewis v. County of 

Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113; Badie, at pp. 784-785.)

Appellant must present each point separately in the opening brief under an 

appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to 

be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing 

Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) This is not a mere technical requirement; 

it is essential to the appellate process. Appellants must “present their cause 

systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining 

the rule of law to apply may be advised . . . of the exact question under consideration, 

instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.” (Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 

126 Cal.App. 324, 325; accord, Opdyk, at p. 1830, fn. 4.)

Appellant’s opening brief fails on all of these grounds. Under the circumstances, 

she has forfeited her claims of error.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

 /s/

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 /s/

HULL, J.
Mark WOODS, petitioner, v. WARDEN, FDC PHILADELPHIA.

No. 18M72.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
LIMITED WAIVER AGREEMENT

THIS LIMITED WAIVER AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 23rd day of January, 2002, by and between COGENTRIX ENERGY, INC., a North Carolina corporation (the "Corporation"), and JAMES R. PAGANO (the "Executive").

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The Corporation and the Executive are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 1999, as amended (the "Employment Agreement"), covering the terms and conditions of the Executive's employment with the Corporation.
          Subject to the execution and delivery of this Limited Waiver Agreement, the Corporation shall pay a performance bonus to the Executive in the amount of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) for 2001 (the "2001 Performance Bonus").  The Corporation and the Executive desire to limit the consideration of the 2001 Performance Bonus under certain provisions of the Employment Agreement, as set forth below.
          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
          1.          Notwithstanding anything in the Employment Agreement to the contrary, in the event the payment described in paragraph 2 of that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement between the Corporation and the Executive dated November 12, 2001 becomes payable to the Executive during calendar year 2002, then solely for purposes of calculating the amount of the payment in such event (i.e.,the calculation set forth in paragraph 4.a. of the Employment Agreement), the amount of the "performance bonus" component shall be the lesser of Amount A or Amount B, where:

Amount A is the actual amount of the 2001 Performance Bonus; andAmount B is the excess (if any) of (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000) over (ii) the bonus paid to the Executive based on calendar year 2001 results under the Cogentrix Energy, Inc. Incentive Bonus Plan.

2.          Except as expressly modified by this Limited Waiver Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Limited Waiver Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

COGENTRIX ENERGY, INC.

By:   /s/ DAVID J. LEWISDavid J. Lewis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ JAMES R. PAGANOJames R. Pagano
EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-23689) pertaining to the Super Vision International,
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-32007) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of our report
dated March 7, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Super Vision International, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for
the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                           Ernst & Young LLP


Orlando, Florida
March 21, 2001
JOHN D. RUTLEDGE,

Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL 

MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 

LINDA M. ROARK, TENANT, 

ANNA A. ANDERSON A/K/A 

ANNA B. ANDERSON, ET AL.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4742

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 11, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

William A. Wilkes, Judge.

John D. Rutledge, pro se, Appellant.

Kathleen E. Angione of SHD Legal Group, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

CLARK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.1


 





SINO-GLOBAL SHIPPING
AMERICA, LTD.


 


 


March 24, 2019


 


 


Via Email 


 


Dear Mr. Jianming Li:


 


This letter shall confirm
our discussions pursuant to which you have indicated your willingness to serve as a Class I director on the Board of Directors
of Sino-Global Shipping America, Ltd. (the “Company”), Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee, a member
of the Audit Committee and a member of the Compensation Committee, effective March 25, 2019, until the annual shareholders meeting
in 2020 or your earlier resignation or the removal pursuant to the Company’s by-laws.


 


Our company compensates
our non-employee directors for all services they perform as a director of our company, including attendance at Board of Directors
meetings and service as members of committees of the Board of Directors to which they are appointed. The details of such compensation
are:


 


		1.	an annual compensation of $20,000;



		2.	eligible to participate in the Company’s 2014 Stock Incentive Plan, and to be compensated
at the same level of other independent directors’ of the Company.



 


You would also be reimbursed
for all of your out-of-pocket expenses in traveling to and attending meetings of the Board of Directors and committees on which
you would serve.


 


You may indicate your agreement
with these terms by signing and dating this letter agreement and returning it to the undersigned. By signing this letter agreement,
you reconfirm to the Company that you have no contractual commitments or other legal obligations that would prohibit you from performing
your duties for the Company.


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	SINO-GLOBAL SHIPPING AMERICA, LTD.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/  Lei Cao
	 	 	Lei Cao
	 	 	President & Chief Executive Officer







 


 





 



 


I have read and accept and agree to the above terms of employment:


 





	/s/ Jianming Li	 
	Signature of Jianming Li
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                CEO CERTIFICATION

I, Bradley T. MacDonald, the registrant, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medifast, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this 10-Q 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 financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for the periods presented in this report;

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
      procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
      registrant and have:

      a.    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 by 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 change in the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
            quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
            affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
            registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
      auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:

      a.    All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b.    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal control over financial reporting.

May 10, 2005

/s/ Bradley T. MacDonald
--------------------------
Bradley T. MacDonald
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer