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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,593
<INVENTORY>                                     36,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,548
<PP&E>                                          60,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,878
<BONDS>                                        180,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,255
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,216
<SALES>                                        243,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,626
<CGS>                                          175,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  175,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                       931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,320
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned does hereby certify that:

 

The Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|                      | /s/ David R. Carlucci                              |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: July 31,  2009 | David R. Carlucci                                  |
|                      | Chairman, Chief  Executive Officer and President   |
|                      |                                               |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | /s/ Leslye G. Katz                                 |
| Date: July 31,  2009 | Leslye G. Katz                                     |
|                      | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Qor as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to IMS HealthIncorporated and will be retained by IMS Health Incorporated and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 10.9**

 

FINAL

Stock-Settled RSU

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION

2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD

(Effective as of April 14, 2008)

 

This AMENDMENTNO. 1 TO THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN RESTRICTEDSTOCK UNIT AWARD (the “Amendment”) is hereby adopted and approved by the CompensationCommittee of the Board of Directors of Northwest Airlines Corporation (the “Company”)as of the date set forth above.

 

Pursuant tothe authority granted under Section 3.1(g) of the Northwest AirlinesCorporation 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Compensation Committeeof the Board of Directors of the Company hereby amends the Plan’s RestrictedStock Unit Award (the “RSU”) as follows:

 

1.                             Amendmentof RSU.  Section 1.2 of the RSUis deleted in its entirety and hereby replaced with the following:

 

“1.2         “Cause” shallmean “Cause” as defined in a management compensation agreement between theGrantee and the Company or a Subsidiary of the Company, or, if not definedtherein or if there is no such agreement, “Cause” shall mean any one or more ofthe following: (a) an act or acts of personal dishonesty by the Granteeintended to result in substantial personal enrichment of the Grantee at theexpense of the Company or a Subsidiary, (b) an act or acts of personaldishonesty by the Grantee intended to cause substantial injury to the Companyor a Subsidiary, (c) material breach (other than as a result of aDisability) by the Grantee of the Grantee’s obligations under the terms andconditions of the Grantee’s employment, which action was (i) undertakenwithout a reasonable belief that the action was in the best interests of theCompany or a Subsidiary and (ii) not remedied within fifteen days afterreceipt of written notice from the Company or a Subsidiary specifying thealleged breach, or (d) the conviction of the Grantee of a felony.”

 

2.                             Amendment of RSU.  Section 3.3 of the RSU is deleted in itsentirety and hereby replaced with the following:

 

----

 

“*Change of Control*: Notwithstanding anyother provision of the Terms and Conditions, in the event of a Change inControl during the Grantee’s employment, 100% of the Restricted Stock Unitsshall vest (to the extent not previously vested).”

 

2.                             Definitions.Except as otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms used but notdefined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Northwest AirlinesCorporation 2007 Stock Incentive Plan or the RSU.

 

                                Adoptedby the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Northwest AirlinesCorporation on April 14, 2008.

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40703 Conference Calendar

JOHNNY ALLEN MCDOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNIDENTIFIED DIXON, Warden, Bradshaw State Jail; GLENDA FERGUSON, Registered Nurse Certified, Bradshaw State Jail; J. SHIPP, Lieutenant, Bradshaw State Jail; UNIDENTIFIED TURNER, Sergeant, Bradshaw State Jail; UNIDENTIFIED GHOLSON, Officer, Bradshaw State Jail; UNIDENTIFIED MEDICAL STAFF MEMBER, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:98-CV-20

-------------------- June 16, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnny Allen McDowell, Texas prisoner # 756787, appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McDowell asserted that he was denied medical attention for hypertension. We review the dismissal of a prisoner complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion. Talib v. Gilley , 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998).No. 99-40703 - 2 - The undisputed medical evidence shows that McDowell was receiving ongoing medical treatment for his high blood pressure. The two occasions on which he requested but did not receive immediate treatment cannot be characterized as an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). McDowell's appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of the original complaint as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution McDowell that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Bruce S. Bennett (SBN 105430) 

Joshua M. Mester (SBN 194783) 

James O. Johnston (SBN 167330) 

JONES DAY 

555 South Flower Street 

Fiftieth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071.2300 

Telephone: +1.213.489.3939 

Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539 

E-mail: bbennett@jonesday.com 

 jmester@jonesday.com 

 jjohnston@jonesday.com 

Attorneys for PG&E Shareholders 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 

BETWEEN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF 

SENIOR UNSECURED 

NOTEHOLDERS AND CERTAIN PG&E 

SHAREHOLDERS EXTENDING TIME 

TO RESPOND TO MOTION OF THE 

AD HOC COMMITTEE OF SENIOR 

UNSECURED NOTEHOLDERS TO 

TERMINATE THE DEBTORS’ 

EXCLUSIVE PERIODS

Affects PG&E Corporation 

Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM).

 

[No Hearing Requested] 

Signed and Filed: July 16, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

July 16, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3015 Filed: 07/16/19 Entered: 07/16/19 18:14:02 Page 1 of

2
- 1 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The Court having considered the Stipulation Between Ad Hoc Committee of Senior 

Unsecured Noteholders and Certain PG&E Shareholders Extending Time to Respond to Motion 

of the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Unsecured Noteholders to Terminate the Debtors’ Exclusive 

Periods (the “Stipulation”) entered into by counsel acting on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of 

Senior Unsecured Noteholders of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Ad Hoc Committee”) 

on the one hand, and certain owners of common stock of PG&E Corporation (the “PG&E 

Shareholders”) who desire to respond to the Motion to Terminate Exclusivity (as defined in the 

Stipulation),1 on the other hand, filed on July 16, 2019, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The time for the PG&E Shareholders to file and serve any response or opposition 

to the Motion to Terminate Exclusivity is extended through 4:00 p.m. (Pacific) on July 18, 2019. 

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 

Dated: July 16, 2019 

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

By: /s/ Ashley Vinson Crawford

Ashley Vinson Crawford 

Attorneys for the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior 

Unsecured Noteholders 

 

**END OF ORDER** 

 

1

 The PG&E Shareholders are identified in the Verified Statement Of Jones Day Pursuant To 

Federal Rule Of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 [ECF 2071]. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3015 Filed: 07/16/19 Entered: 07/16/19 18:14:02 Page 2 of

2
#### Gilbert Hewitt and another, Executors, etc., Respondents, v. Richard V. Hall and others, Executors, etc., Appellants.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with leave to plaintiff to discontinue, without costs. Opinion by

Pratt and Dykman, JJ.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 31.2  I, Jim Akrivos, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Grand Motion, Inc. (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the 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-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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion 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 fiscal 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; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: February 27, 2008 /s/ Jim Akrivos Jim Akrivos, President (as Principal Financial Officer)
#### Robert Richards, Plaintiff, *v.*The City of Geneva, New York, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Ontario County,

October 9, 1936.

*Joseph J. Spillane,*for the plaintiff.

*Albert G. Kirby, City Attorney,*for the defendant.

Cunningham, J.

The plaintiff was employed by defendant as patrolman between the 29th day of May, 1927, and the 15th day of March, 1935. On the latter date the plaintiff “ left the employ of defendant.” The complaint alleges that *“*the defendant during each and every year of plaintiff’s said employment retained from plaintiff’s salary sums of money which said sums of money were retained by defendant as part of what is known as the police pension fund.”

In 1927 the defendant adopted a local law amending an. act formerly passed by the Legislature establishing the police pension fund of the city of Geneva. The court will take judicial notice of this local law. (City Home Rule Law, § 32; *Greiner*v. *City of Syracuse,*228 App. Div. 566; affd., 256 N. Y. 688.)

The City Home Rule Law also provides that local laws of cities shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State and shall be published annually as a supplement to the Session Laws. (City Home Rule Law, § 22.)

The Local Laws of Cities in State, published as supplement to the Session Laws, show that the local law adopted in 1927 was in force all during the time of plaintiff’s service as a patrolman.

The local law provides that the “ commissioners of police shall monthly, or as often as the pay-rolls for the police department are *573made up, deduct two per cent of the respective salaries paid to members of the police force; ” that the amount so deducted shall be paid into the police pension fund. Various other sums are also made a part of the police pension fund. (Geneva Local Laws of 1927, No. 4, § 174.)

The local law does not provide that the amount deducted from the pay of a member of the police department shall be returned to him in case he resign before he becomes entitled to a pension. The money in the police pension fund may be used only for the payment of pensions. (Geneva Local Laws of 1927, No. 4, §§ 180, 181.)

The plaintiff having resigned, is not entitled to recover the amount authorized to be deducted from his salary and which was paid into the police pension fund. The moneys in that fund are public moneys and may be used only for the purposes specified by law. *(Clarke*v. *Reis,*87 Cal. 543; 25 P. 759; *People ex rel. Freligh*v. *Matsell,*94 N. Y. 179; *Pennie*v. *Reis,*132 U. S. 464; *State ex rel. Risch*v. *Board of Trustees of Policemen’s Pension Fund,*121 Wis. 44; 98 N. W. 954.)

Judgment may be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs.
#### BLUE MAGIC COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, a Partnership Composed of W. H. HUPLITS, JR., and MAX M. LEVY, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.

(Filed 22 September, 1954.)

Pleadings § 28—

Allegations of evidential rather than ultimate or issuable facts, and of contentions of law, should be stricken on motion aptly made. Such determination is without prejudice to rulings upon the trial as to the competency of the evidence and upon the questions of law.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Morris, J.,*May Term, 1954, of WilsON.

Modified and affirmed.

Action by plaintiffs to recover from defendant, terminal carrier, with reference to glass bottles purchased by plaintiffs, alleged to have been *627damaged while in transit from shipping points in Indiana and Pennsylvania to plaintiffs’ plant in Wilson, North Carolina.

Defendant answered the allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the defendant alleged much new matter under the captions First Further Answer and Defense and Counterclaim, Second Further Answer and Defense, and Third Further Answer and Defense. The hearing below was on plaintiffs’ motion to strike twelve numbered paragraphs of defendant’s First Further Answer and Defense, all of its Second Further Answer and Defense, and all of its Third Further Answer and Defense. Judgment in the court below allowed plaintiffs’ said motion as to paragraph 13 of defendant’s First Further Answer and Defense but denied plaintiffs’ motion to all other challenged allegations. Plaintiffs appealed from the portion of the judgment denying its motion.

*Gardner, Connor •& Lee for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*M. Y. Barnhill, Jr., F. S. Spruill, and Lucas & Rand'for defendant, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

A careful consideration of the allegations challenged by plaintiffs’ motion reveals that the matters alleged are evidential or probative facts rather than ultimate or issuable facts, or that they constitute a narration of defendant’s contentions of law. Hence, they have no proper place in defendant’s pleading. They are deemed prejudicial. *Daniel v. Gardner, ante,*249, 81 S.E. 2d 660. Plaintiffs’ motion should have been allowed in its entirety. It is so ordered.

Defendant’s pleading sufficiently alleges, in allegations not challenged, the ultimate or issuable facts upon which it bases its defense and counterclaim. Rulings as to competency of evidence and as to questions of law will be passed upon at the trial. The allowance of plaintiffs’ motion will have no bearing upon the decision of such questions by the trial judge.

Modified and affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY **GENERAL** OF TEXAS AUSTIN
-O.MNW --

‘,

..., : /,the Oourt *bull be **fllrlt.with** the Clerk of tb* **ObUDtY Oowt,**  **and** 

### tuiseleria&Only.,in aaaor4ane,

tharentbh, **ad** 00 oxpmadlture ot 4ho fun&o of **the** eow&y 

### dell thenefter be rawloexoopt in 8trioU oo@iaaoe rifh the **bud&et a8**  **adopted by**  **the Geurt** * **sre*pt** **that** eiaer@enoy 

### l

pmd ltw~o,

in ewe of grave 

### publieaeMocity, to raeat

unuouel ~8 Wowown 

### ooadltiooo uhioh **oould xwt,**  **by** 

### reeoonebly **dil&$eat** thou&t and attention, here bran inoluded Ia t&b oii&uel budget, a6r troa **Olmb ba**  **t;ha be**  **wthcrizail by**  **the GOutt**  l8 **aa#sdarn#** to 

### the orl@nel buQ.t. 

### In 41X oa owahero l 

### uoh emoadlment to tha 

### orlglnel **buodwt IO**  **me&e a**  **oo ’** **y ti**  **the,or** der of the Oourt anwnbfng the **boa&d** 

### ohel P be ,filad

ni5h the Olerk et tb4 Cbuaty eod l tteoheb t0 

### bhe bu6b 

### g6t ori@all~ e40p~*db* &W%,


### 4 held in otat

OpioSea

Q-1088,dtteme~ Qmierel*e mmel &pOXfi for iss* pare ma+ that &tW 

### 5he OeoDt tiaelfy ip:xod br‘tbo oenair~iomro ’ qaar), L h&et $00 been~

1c o4atdoo,len8r8* 

### oourtwould aot be aothorirrd to w&end the or%glnel **bmilbyt, unleoo**  **the** 

### l xpenaltureo

se& 

### out in 

### thm asmnderat to th+ boa@3 were ame?- 

### (te n0 pub1 0 3 

### l xp oa d ltuxe o

an4 were .eeaooCe~~ beee*oit*$~ % ;;a lb-rrve ttaaue~t~ 

### te sioet 

### rlotime1 end wiroFooHn.rell&i'$olao wh%oh t em14 not, by xeeoonoblp 

### dQlt@wst **thou&t end**  attendlo$t, **Jwto** 

### tw.0; fnolud.4

ln tbo aJl&arl **bu$uetb**

%'aassume hrra yotm letter 

### Qhrt tha bua@5 

### bar net beon esrmdedLn eoeardattee 

### nit& **the prorisiobo**  **of** 

### the ertlol~ **rirot** l

**beve** quoted. 

### Presurst~ that 

### oneb ocmslrsionrt io author 1~04 te expend,fn %afiyfng on the work 

### Itn

his pmaitm6, the amount 

### ellotod

and eet **up** in **the** orQina% **budgcrt for**  eumh **pus** p000* his **nuthority 6-e**  

### not oxtsn4 to l ite6Oaetfag et penQit uPe 0 b s , on b

l 

### tzoh **macmnto 00**  **fixed** 

### anlbeeQUXOMM 

### t6 I?& l ?MabaeAt melapsed u&or the pxoriofons of the **btadgoat**

### ler.go~or&blfl L Y. Ounalngb4B, pa,m 3

**ft** IS tbrarefore the opinion 

### of thi8 **depsrtannt** fbgt the oounty eo-rzlr.sfmars we 

### net authc0%93il t3 laour bfiig far the 

## t3xpenaiture ot sounty iusfU~ in **Deaexber** of **1~40** lx BXO~DSR

0: the 1040 

## &apt 3r sranAat3nCn mide tbwsto

,, ., )r the ooamlstiioaer*r eouxh YO~:rJs very tmlly