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


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of The Associated Group, Inc. as of and for
the nine months ended September 30, 1997 included in Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1000

       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              8,194
<SECURITIES>                        0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                       5,859
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,733
<INVENTORY>                         1,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    20,625
<PP&E>                              58,778
<DEPRECIATION>                      28,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      745,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               157,121
<BONDS>                             7,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            3,756<F2>
<OTHER-SE>                          335,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        745,926
<SALES>                             469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    18,134
<CGS>                               326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       9,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    9,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    872
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  5,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (82,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (15,434)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (66,752)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (66,752)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (1.78)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0

<FN>
<F1>Does not include $641,935 of noncurrent marketable equity securities.
<F2>Reflects a two-for-one stock split of The Associated Group, Inc. Class A 
Common Stock and Class B Common Stock effected in the form of a stock dividend
of one share of Class A Common Stock and one share of Class B Common Stock for
each outstanding share of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock,
respectively, held  by stockholders of record on October 17, 1997.  All per
share amounts and the weighted average number of  shares outstanding in the
consolidated financial statements included in Form 10-Q for the quarter ending 
September 30, 1997 have been adjusted to reflect the stock dividend.  Previously
filed Financial Data  Schedules have not been restated to reflect the stock
dividend.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATIONS
  Pursuant to Section 302 I, Gary Saunders, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10KSB of eKnowledge Group, Inc] ;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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 in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 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 controls; and
 
 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: May 20, 2003
 
 /s/ Gary S. Saunders  Gary S. Saunders  President / Director / Secretary
STATE v. PONE.

No. COA08-656.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Sampson (07CRS52036).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Logo
Exhibit 10.44
 
 
 
 
 November 3, 2010
  Keith Omsberg
 
 
 
 
  Dear Keith,
 
  This letter serves as an amendment to your employment agreement with Tier Technologies, Inc. dated May 6, 2009 (the "Employment Agreement").  As of the date you execute this amendment, you hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:
  1.  Delete the first sentence of Section 2, Term of Employment, and replace with the following:
 
 "The Company hereby continues to employ the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts such continued employment, for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on November 3, 2012, subject to earlier termination of the Term of Employment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement."
  2.  Revise the first sentence of Section 11(c) as follows: (i) replace "thirtieth (30th)" with "sixtieth (60th)" and (ii) insert at the end of the sentence ", which release must become effective and irrevocable no later than the sixtieth (60th) calendar day following the date of termination."
  Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect, including but not limited to your obligations under the Proprietary and Confidential Information, Developments, Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Agreement that you signed for the benefit of the Company.
  11130 Sunrise Valley Blvd. • Suite 300 • Reston, VA 20191 • Ph: 571-382-1000 • Fax: 571-382-1384
 
 www.tier.com
  This amendment and the Employment Agreement contain the entire understanding and agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements, understandings, discussions, negotiations and undertakings, whether written or oral, with respect thereto. This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (without reference to the conflict of laws provisions thereof). This amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.
  For and on behalf of
 Tier Technologies, Inc.
 
 /s/ Alex P. Hart
 Alex P. Hart
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 I have read the above amendment to the Employment Agreement, and I voluntarily accept the terms and conditions set forth above.
 
 /s/ Keith S. Omsberg

November 5, 2010Keith S. Omsberg

Date
 
  11130 Sunrise Valley Blvd. • Suite 300 • Reston, VA 20191 • Ph: 571-382-1000 • Fax: 571-382-1384
 
 www.tier.com
HUDSON v. HUDSON.

No. COA08-76.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (04CVD107).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Kevin Patrick ROWLETTE, Janith Martin, Marchella Thomas and Wanda Adams, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. STATE of North Carolina, and Richard H. Moore, in his official capacity as the Treasurer for the State of North Carolina.

No. 131P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, John R. Wylie, Arthur T. Susman, Arthur J. Donaldson, for Rowlette, et al.

*488Douglas A. Johnston, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 619.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiffs on the 25th day of March 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of March 2008 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Arturo Baeza CALZADA.

No. 242P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Arturo Baeza Calzada, Pro Se.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Yreka, California, September 19, 2005. The meeting will include routine business and the review, discussion, and possible recommendation of submitted large projects.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held September 19, 2005, from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Yreka High School Library, Preece Way, Yreka, California.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Don Hall, RAC Coordinator, Klamath National Forest, (530) 841-4468 or electronically at                         *donaldhall@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Public comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Dated: September 2, 2005.

Margaret J. Boland,

Designated Federal official.

[FR Doc. 05-17895 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2014 of 19 August 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2014                     

# of 19 August 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 August 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. HAITH.

No. COA08-236.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (06CRS57647, 06CRS20245).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/338 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/338 of 27 February 2015 concerning certain interim protective measures in relation            to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in Hungary (Only the Hungarian text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)            (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/338                     

# of 27 February 2015

# concerning certain interim protective measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in Hungary

# (Only the Hungarian text is authentic)

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/522 of 25 March 2015 concerning certain protective measures in relation to highly                                 pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in Hungary (notified under document C(2015) 1711).
hifr-ex103_140.htm



Exhibit 10.3

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

to Eighth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement

(CREZ Lease)

June 20, 2016

 

This First Amendment to the Eighth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (the “First Amendment”) between Sharyland Distribution and Transmission Services, L.L.C. (“Lessor”) and Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (“Lessee”) is executed and delivered on June 20, 2016 and is effective as of June 13, 2016.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined will have the meanings assigned to such terms in the CREZ Lease (as defined below).

 

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee are Parties to a Third Amended and Restated Lease Agreement (CREZ Assets) dated as of December 4, 2015 (as amended from time to time in accordance with its terms, the “CREZ Lease”);

 

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2016, the Parties executed the Eighth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (CREZ Lease) effective as of January 1, 2016 (the “Eighth Amended Supplement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Eighth Amended Supplement as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree to the following:

 

1.Amendment.  The table titled “ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation” is hereby amended by deleting the table in its entirety and replacing the same with the following:

 

ERCOT Transmission Rate


	
Allocation:
	
between June 20 and October 17, 2013:  65.3%

	
 
	
between October 17, 2013 and February 25, 2014:  84.8%

	
 
	
between February 25, 2014 and May 1, 2014:  83.3%

	
 
	
between May 1, 2014 and October 3, 2014:  80.9%

	
 
	
between October 3, 2014 and March 31, 2015:  75.8%

	
 
	
between April 1, 2015 and October 31, 2015:  72.7%

	
 
	
between November 1, 2015 and June 13, 2016:  65.6%

	
 
	
between June 13, 2016 and October 1, 2016:  56.8%

	
 
	
starting October 1, 2016:  47.7%




 

2.Continuing Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the provisions of each of the CREZ Lease and the Eighth Amended Supplement are and shall remain in full force and effect.  

 

[Signatures on Following Page]

 




CREZ LEASE

 



The Parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date set forth above.

 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND UTILITIES, L.P.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Name:Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND DISTRIBUTION &

	
 
	
TRANSMISSION SERVICES, L.L.C.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Name:Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

CREZ LEASE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7526

JACK HINCHMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRIME CARE MEDICAL, Central Regional Jail,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-93-1)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Hinchman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jack Hinchman appeals from the district court’s order denying

his motion for reimbursement. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hinchman v.

Prime Care Medical, No. CA-01-93-1 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2001). 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
# CE2004078EN.01037501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/375

---

(2004/C 78 E/0397)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1595/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border payments in euro

Subject:

With reference to written question P-0327/03 (1) of 31 January 2003, the Commission's answer to which was unclear, the questioner once again seeks clarification as to whether an electronic card which serves as both a credit card and a debit card in Portugal can only be used as a credit card in the other euro countries.

1

More precisely, can a card which is used to withdraw cash from ATMs free of charge in Portugal be used for the same purpose in the other countries in the euro zone or might the withdrawal, without prior warning, be considered as a cash advance with the charges that entails?

Similarly, can the Commission say what it means by ‘deferred debit cards’ mentioned in point 23 of Commission Decision 2002/914/EC (2) of 24 July 2002 and what the advantages are for consumers?

2

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is still conducting an investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

---

(1)  See page 354.

1

(2)  OJ L 318, 22.11.2002, p. 17.

2

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. J UAN CARLOS PINEDA

- NAVARRO , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA-CR 18-0798 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Maricopa County No. CR2012-009423-003 No. CR2012-113855-001 No. CR2012-132905-003 No. CR2012-137892-004 The Honorable Daniel J. Kiley , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent
J uan Carlos Pineda

- Navarro , Florence Petitioner FILED 4-23-2019STATE v. PINEDA

- NAVARRO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Randall M. Howe , and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Juan Carlos Pineda

- Navarro review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Pineda

- Navarro ’s second petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction r elief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find t he petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief.