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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,082
<SECURITIES>                                    16,437
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (593)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,969
<PP&E>                                          13,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,089)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,303
<SALES>                                         27,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,098
<CGS>                                            7,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,665
<INCOME-TAX>                                       615
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,050
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,050
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.7
                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                             WOODROAST SYSTEMS, INC.
                                 1994 STOCK PLAN
                                  May 29, 1996

RECITALS:

A.       The Woodroast Systems, Inc. 1994 Stock Plan (the "Plan") was adopted by
         the Board of Directors of Woodroast Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
         February 3, 1994, and was approved by the shareholders of the Company
         on February 3, 1994. The Plan is now in full force and effect.

B.       The Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares
         of common stock available for issuance pursuant to the Plan.


AMENDMENT:

THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.       The first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended to read
         as follows:

                  "SECTION 3.  STOCK SUBJECT TO PLAN.

                  "The total number of shares of Stock reserved and available
         for distribution under the Plan shall be 750,000 shares, subject to
         increase or decrease in the event of any adjustment required in the
         paragraph below...."

2.       The foregoing amendment shall be effective as of May 29, 1996, and
         shall be subject to approval by the shareholders of the Company at its
         next Annual or Special Meeting of shareholders.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, September 29, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to September 30, 2005, 5 p.m., The Watergate, 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 24, 2005, 70 FR 49663-49664.                

The meeting is cancelled due to the reassignment of the applications.

Dated: September 13, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-18860  Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00505- CV

In re IMA of K ansas, In c.
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The petition f

or writ of mandamus and motion for temporar y relief are denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: Aug ust 23, 2011
----

(2004/C 65 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject:   Derogation from the Nitrates Directive

The Irish Government has recently promised Irish farming organisations that it will seek a derogation on the limits imposed on the spreading of slurry by the Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC (1).

How will the Commission respond to this promise, made during negotiations for a new National Agreement (Sustaining Progress)?

If a wealthy, long-standing EU member such as Ireland is still looking for ways out of implementing EU legislation, does the Commission agree that this move sends a bad signal to the accession countries?

----

(1)OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

----
II 

★(Star Print)

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 609 

To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 

funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service 

support programs established pursuant to that section are not subject 

to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known 

as the Antideficiency Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 

to provide that funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service support programs 

established pursuant to that section are not subject to 

certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDING. 

4 Congress finds that in order to ensure the efficient 

5 and effective implementation of the Universal Service 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

S 609 IS1S 

1 Fund on a long-term basis, the Universal Service Fund 

2 needs to be exempt from the Antideficiency Act. 

3 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934. 

4 Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

5 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(m) APPLICATION OF ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT.—Sec8 tion 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, 

9 United States Code, do not apply— 

10 ‘‘(1) to any amount collected or received as 

11 Federal universal service contributions required by 

12 this section, including any interest earned on such 

13 contributions; nor 

14 ‘‘(2) to the expenditure or obligation of 

15 amounts attributable to such contributions for uni16 versal service support programs established pursuant 

17 to this section.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
# C_2011145EN.01002101.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — FRA.BO v Commission

(Case T-381/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Leniency Notice - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Attenuating circumstances - Immunity from fines - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment)

2011/C 145/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FRA.BO SpA (Bordolano, Italy) (represented initially by R. Celli, Solicitor, and F. Distefano, lawyer, and subsequently by F. Distefano)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella, Solicitor, and K. Nordlander, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FRA.BO SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FRA.BO SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
1The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3653

___________

Richard Cavaluzzi, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

Karen Schweppe; Neena Hicks, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Plaintiffs, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

AutoZone, Inc. *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 3, 2001

 Filed: August 8, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Cavaluzzi appeals from the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment

to his employer, AutoZone, Inc., in his action asserting race discrimination and
-2-

retaliation claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and the Missouri Human Rights

Act (MHRA). We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment,

which is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Barge v. Anheuser-Busch,

Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 258 (8th Cir. 1996).

Having carefully reviewed the record and parties’ submissions on appeal, we

conclude that Cavaluzzi’s claims fail because he did not present evidence of an adverse

employment action. See Gillming v. Simmons Indus., 91 F.3d 1168, 1173 n.2 (8th Cir.

1996) (applying same analysis to Title VII and MHRA claims); London v. Northwest

Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir. 1995) (elements of prima facie case of race

discrimination under Title VII); Evans v. T.W. Servs., Inc., 930 F.2d 612, 614 (8th Cir.

1991) (elements of prima facie retaliation case under Title VII).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 99

     Forward-Looking  Information

     "Safe  Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of  1995:  The  statements contained in  this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K which
are  not  historical  facts  contain forward looking information with respect to
plans,  projections  or  future  performance of Coastal, the occurrence of which
involve  certain  risks and uncertainties detailed in Coastal's filings with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  ("SEC").

     The Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of  Operations set forth in the Form 10-K should be read in conjunction with the
information  contained  in  the  Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes
thereto.  Such  discussion  contains  "forward-looking  statements"  within  the
meaning  of  the  Private  Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Reform
Act"),  and is subject to the safe harbor created by the  Reform Act.  The words
"estimate," "project," "anticipate," "expect," "intend," "believe," "plans," and
similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Because
such  forward-looking  statements  involve  risks  and  uncertainties, there are
important  factors  that  could  cause  actual results to differ materially from
those  expressed  or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors, all of
which  are  difficult  to  predict  and  many of which are beyond the control of
Coastal,  that  could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are
not  limited  to:  risks  related  to  Coastal's acquisition strategy, including
risks  of  adversely  changing  results  of  operations  and  factors  affecting
Coastal's  ability  to  consummate  further   acquisitions;  risks  involved  in
Coastal's  ability  to  quickly  and  efficiently  integrate  the  operations of
acquired  entities  with  those  of  Coastal;  changes  in  general economic and
business  conditions;  changes  in market rates of interest; changes in the laws
and  regulations  applicable  to  Coastal;  the risks associated with the Bank's
non-traditional  lending  (loans  other  than single-family residential mortgage
loans  such  as multifamily, real estate acquisition and development, commercial
real  estate,  commercial  business  and  warehouse  and  loans); and changes in
business strategies and other factors as discussed herein.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
VASCO Data Security International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-62829) and on Form S-3 (333-46256) of VASCO Data Security
International, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 15, 2006 with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of VASCO Data Security International,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports are included in the December
31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of VASCO Data Security International, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   980
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              677
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         14682
<OTHER-SE>                                      (14379)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       980
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  8051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (8051)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (8051)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3686 

To require official White House meals and meals served at White House 

or Department of Agriculture cafeterias to be in compliance with the 

nutrition requirements for the school breakfast program and the school 

lunch program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2013 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. JOYCE, and Mr. GRAVES of 

Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 

Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require official White House meals and meals served 

at White House or Department of Agriculture cafeterias 

to be in compliance with the nutrition requirements for 

the school breakfast program and the school lunch program. 

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 ‘‘School Nutrition Fair5 ness Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3686 IH

1 SEC. 2. NUTRITION REQUIREMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi3 sion of law, each official meal served at the White House, 

4 and each meal served at a cafeteria located at the White 

5 House or at the Department of Agriculture shall be in 

6 compliance with the nutrition requirements for school 

7 meals under the Richard B. Russell National School 

8 Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutri9 tion Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.). 

10 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the 

11 phrase ‘‘official meal’’ means a lunch or dinner served at 

12 an official White House function and funded by annual 

13 appropriation Acts. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2012006EN.01001103.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Álvarez v Commission

(Case T-78/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of innocence)

2012/C 6/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez and A. García Castillo, then by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. Ruixó Claramunt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

1

---
In the Matter of: E.A.L. and W.L., III, Juveniles

No. COA16-266

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 12, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10189

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00291 CV-T-MSS

BRYAN MEDIA, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG,

a municipal corporation,

RON BARTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 12, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the

judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. With respect to plaintiff’s due

process and taking claims, we conclude, applying Florida law, that plaintiff had no

property interest because it had no permit for the signs. See Dep’t of Transp. v.

Durden, 471 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1985). We do not believe that plaintiff’s estoppel

argument can give rise to a property interest. Plaintiff cannot satisfy the

exceptional circumstances required to apply estoppel against a governmental party. 

Plaintiff has adduced no evidence that the city’s actions rose above the level of

mere negligence, at most. Nor has plaintiff adduced evidence of a serious injustice. 

Finally, we believe that the application of estoppel against the government in this

case would give rise to undue harm to the public interest.

We believe that plaintiff’s retaliation claim fails because plaintiff has failed

to adduce evidence of retaliatory actions by defendants. Rather, citations issued

against the plaintiff were issued because plaintiff was in violation of the permitting

laws, and there is no evidence that plaintiff was treated differently from others

similar situated. 

Plaintiff’s selective enforcement claims (both federal and state) fail because

there is no evidence that plaintiff was targeted or singled out. With respect to the

January 2004 removal of plaintiff’s sign, the evidence indicates that only plaintiff’s
3

sign was blocking the imminent construction work undertaken by the city’s

contractor. With respect to the six citations for violations issued to plaintiff, the

evidence indicates that all signs in the park area were investigated, and that

citations were also issued with respect to all other violators. Moreover, we agree

with the court below that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of invidious

motivation. 

Plaintiff’s other state law claims are rejected without need for further

discussion.

AFFIRMED.