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


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                      8,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,402
<PP&E>                                           7,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,689
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,134
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,590
<SALES>                                         20,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,075
<CGS>                                           14,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,369
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE FOR THE CURRENT QUARTER HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT A
THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT DECLARED ON FEBRUARY 24, 1998. THE RECORD DATE OF THE
SPLIT WAS APRIL 15, 1998 WITH A DISTRIBUTION DATE OF APRIL 30, 1998. PRIOR YEAR
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES HAVE NOT BEEN RESTATED.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29797]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-70-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

December 1, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 15, 1995, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, P.O. Box 1642, 
Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP96-70-000 a request 
pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for 
authorization to construct and operate a delivery point to Sun Company, 
Inc. (Sun) in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, under Texas Eastern's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Texas Eastern proposes to construct and operate a delivery point to 
Sun in order to provide up to 50,000 dth/d of interruptible 
transportation service to Sun at a cost of $835,390 to be reimbursed by 
Sun.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29797 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE v. EVERETT CLINTON EDWARDS.

(Filed 18 April, 1951.)

Appeal by defendant from *Parker, J.,*October Term, 1950, of Wake.

No error.

The defendant was charged with making an indecent exposure of his person on a public street in the City of Raleigh, in violation of Chapter 273, Public Laws 1941, now Gr.S. 14-190.

The jury returned verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing sentence the defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State, appellee.*

*E. D. Flowers and Robert W. Brooks for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant noted several exceptions to the ruling of the trial judge in the admission of testimony and to a portion of the charge to the jury, but on examination we find none of them of substantial merit.

The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and in the trial we find.

No error.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SteelCloud, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian H. Hajost Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.




Date:
      June 21, 2010By:
                  /s/ Brian H. HajostName:
      Brian H. HajostTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer and President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29974]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-31,454; TA-W-31,454A]


Oxford Industries, Inc., Oxford Shirtings Division, Alamo, 
Georgia, et al.; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply 
for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on October 13, 
1995, applicable to all workers of Oxford Industries, Inc., Oxford 
Shirtings Division located in Alamo, Georgia. The notice was published 
in the Federal Register on October 27, 1995 (60 FR 55064).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the subject 
certification. Based on new information received by the company, the 
Department is amending the certification to cover the workers at the 
subject firm's Lanier Clothes production facility in Bowman, Georgia. 
Shutdown operations will begin in December 1995. The workers produce 
men's pants.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Oxford Industries, Inc. who were adversely affected by 
increase imports of apparel.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-31,454 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Oxford Industries, Inc., Oxford Shirtings 
Division, Alamo, Georgia (TA-W-31,454) engaged in employment related 
to the production of men's dress shirts, and all workers of Oxford 
Industries, Inc., Lanier Clothes, Bowman, Georgia (TA-W-31,454A) who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
September 7, 1994 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of November 1995.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-29974 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




Second Amendment to Employment Agreement




On or about January 19, 2009,        (“Executive”), Freescale Holdings GP, Ltd. (“GP”) and
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) executed an “Amendment to Employment Agreement”
agreeing to a 10% reduction of Executive’s then current base salary provided for in the Employment
Agreement (“Agreement”) previously executed among GP, Freescale and Executive. Freescale and
Executive now agree to the following Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”) to the Agreement:



Executive consents to an additional 3.85% reduction of Executive’s current reduced base salary.
Executive understands that this additional salary reduction will be effective immediately, and will
continue until December 31, 2009, unless Freescale, in its sole discretion, decides to restore
Executive’s current base salary prior to that date. As consideration for the additional salary
reduction, ten (10) additional days of Paid Time Off (PTO) will be added to the existing PTO
balances, with five (5) days of additional PTO added on July 26, 2009 and five (5) additional days
added on October 2, 2009 subject to continued employment. Executive acknowledges the adequacy of
the consideration for this Second Amendment.



Executive understands that Freescale does not intend this additional temporary pay reduction to
impact the level of any benefits that are calculated using Executive’s base salary. Unless
prohibited by law or contract, benefits such as life insurance, disability pay and severance pay,
as applicable, will be calculated using Executive’s current base salary as of January 1, 2009 and
not the base salary after this additional temporary pay reduction.



Executive agrees not to seek future payment from Freescale of the difference between Executive’s
current base salary and the amount Executive is paid during this temporary salary reduction.
Executive further agrees not to use this temporary salary reduction as a basis for claiming
constructive discharge, violation of Freescale policy, a right to severance pay or breach of
Executive’s Agreement. Specifically, but without limitation, Executive agrees that this temporary
salary reduction does not constitute a breach of the Agreement, Good Reason under the Agreement or
other agreements or benefit plans, or the basis for a claim of severance or other benefits or other
payments under the Agreement or any other agreement with Freescale.



1



Executive represents that the decision to agree to this Second Amendment and this additional
temporary salary reduction is completely voluntary, and that Executive has not been coerced or
pressured in any way to agree to this Second Amendment.



	 	 	 
	Executive	 	Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
	 

	 	 
	Signature

	 	Signature
	 

	 	 
	Name

	 	Name






       



	 	 	 
	Title

	 	Title
	 

	 	 
	Date Signed

	 	Date Signed







2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2342
MELESSE HUNDE, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-155-154) Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Melesse Hunde, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Hunde raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Hunde fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Hunde’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Hunde fails to show that he is- 3 - eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2          **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | */s/                Ronald H. Friesen*                           |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald                H. Friesen                                 |
|   | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (principal                financial officer)                     |
|   | November                13, 2007                                 |

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1382]



[[Page 4270]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0603; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Saluda, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register September 14, 2009 that establishes 
Class E Airspace at Saluda County Airport, Saluda, SC.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46894), 
Docket No. FAA-2009-0603; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16. The FAA uses 
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule 
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 14, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1382 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5638 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5638

 To allow railroad employees to remain on duty as necessary to clear a 
           blockage of vehicular traffic at grade crossings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

 Mr. Petri (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Duffy) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow railroad employees to remain on duty as necessary to clear a 
           blockage of vehicular traffic at grade crossings.

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

SECTION 1. GRADE CROSSING EXCEPTION.

    (a) Amendment.--Chapter 211 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 21110. Grade crossing exception.
    ``Employees may be allowed to remain or go on duty for a period in 
excess of the limitations established under this chapter to the extent 
necessary to clear a blockage of vehicular traffic at a grade 
crossing.''.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for such chapter 211 
is amended by inserting at the end the following new item:

``21110. Grade crossing exception.''.
                                 <all>
```
Extreme Networks, Inc. Fiscal 2010 Executive Incentive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.24 
 EXTREME NETWORKS 
 Extreme Executive Incentive Plan 

Effective July 1, 2009 
 Plan Objective: The objective
of the Executive Incentive Plan (“EIP”) is to attract, retain, motivate and reward executives of the Company for driving the Company to achieve specific corporate objectives. 
 Plan Summary: The EIP is a cash-based bonus program that provides payouts which are earned based on corporate achievement of pre-established objectives. 
 Plan Funding: The EIP is funded based on the achievement of certain revenue and operating profit objectives (the “Executive Bonus Pool”). 
 Eligible Employees: All Executive Officers (Including the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales (“SVP Sales”)) and all other executives holding a
title of VP who are not on a commission plan (“the Executives”) are eligible for the EIP. In order to earn a bonus under the EIP, Executives must have been employed by Extreme for a minimum of one full fiscal quarter, and Executives must
be employed by Extreme Networks, or one of its subsidiaries, on the day bonus amounts are paid. 
 Eligible Earnings: Earning categories included in
the calculation include: base pay, holiday pay, overtime, and shift differential earned in FY10 (“Eligible Earnings”). 
 Bonus
Calculations: The Executive Bonus Pool is allocated to Eligible Executives based on the following calculations: 
  

	 	1.	Determine each Executive Individual Bonus Percentage. The “Individual Bonus Percentage” for each Executive (except the SVP Sales) is set as a percentage of base
salary and varies based upon the Executive’s position and responsibilities. The Individual Bonus Percentage for each Executive under the Plan is as follows: 

  

	 	•	 	 Mark Canepa, President and Chief Executive Officer = 85% 


  

	 	•	 	 Bob Corey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer = 60% 


  

	 	•	 	 All other Executives (other than the SVP Sales) = 30%-40% 


  

	 	2.	Determine each Executive’s Target Bonus: Multiply eligible earnings (defined above) by Executive’s Individual Bonus Percentage. The SVP Sales does not have an
Individual Bonus Percentage. Instead, the Target Bonus of the SVP Sales is set at $78,000. 









	 	3.	Determine each Executive’s Participation Rate: Divide each executive’s Target Bonus by the aggregate of the Target Bonuses for all eligible Executives.


  

	 	4.	Determine Each Executive’s Bonus: Multiply Executive’s Participation Rate by the Executive Bonus Pool. 

 Committee Discretion: The Compensation Committee retains the right to adjust the Executive Bonus Pool based on changes in the business during the year.
EX-34.7
(logo) Grant Thornton

Accountants and Business Advisors


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria ("Management's
Report"), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential and
commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as
third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x)
and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to
the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

San Diego, CA
February 6, 2008


12340 El Camino Real
Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92130
T 858.704.8000
F 858.704.8099
W www.grantthornton.com

Grant Thornton LLP
US Member of Grant Thornton International