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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BEYOND.COM CORPORATION FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (786)
<INVENTORY>                                        414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,507
<PP&E>                                          19,530
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,493)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,605
<BONDS>                                         17,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       298,739
<OTHER-SE>                                   (207,225)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,538
<SALES>                                         29,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,082
<CGS>                                           25,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,523)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,273)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,032)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 45,176
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,144
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68


</TABLE>
Form of Amd 2 to the Aleris Corp 2010 Equity Incentive Plan Director Stock Agmt



 Exhibit 10.24.2 

ALERIS CORPORATION 
 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 FORM OF 

AMENDMENT 2 TO THE 
 STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT 
 , 2011 

 

			
	 TO:
	  	
		
	 FROM:
	  	Aleris Corporation (formerly “Aleris Holding Company”)
		
	 Re:
	  	Amendment 2 to Option Award Agreement

 On         , 2010 you were granted an option to purchase shares of common stock
of Aleris Corporation (the “Company”) (the “Option”) pursuant to an Award Agreement issued under the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) amended as of April 28, 2011 by Amendment 1 to the
Award Agreement. 
 In light of the Company becoming a public company, we have amended, restated and renamed the Plan as the 2011 Equity
Incentive Plan and we have mutually agreed to amend the terms of your Award Agreement, effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of a 2011 initial public offering of the Company (the “IPO”), as follows: 

 

	1.	Section 2. Exercise. The last two sentences of Section 2 are deleted. 


 

	2.	Section 3(C). Early Termination of the Option. The reference to Plan Section 11 is amended to Plan Section 12. 


 

	3.	Section 4. Company Call Right. Section 4 is deleted. 

  

	4.	Section 5. Option Subject to Plan and Stockholders Agreement. Section 5 is amended to change the heading to Option Subject to Plan and Sections 5
(a) and (b) are amended to read as follows: 

  

	 	(a)	Participant Acknowledgements. By entering into this Award Agreement, you agree and acknowledge that (i) the Option is subject in all respects to the Plan;
(ii) the Option is subject to Plan provisions under which, in certain circumstances, the Committee may terminate your Option and/or make adjustments to the kind and/or number of shares or property underlying the Option; and (iii) the
Committee has discretion to interpret and administer the Plan and this Award Agreement and its judgments made in accordance with the Plan are final. 

  

	 	(b)	Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between any term or provision contained herein and a term or provision of the amended and restated Plan, the term or
provision contained in the amended and restated Plan shall control. 


  
 8166868.1










	5.	Sections (a) and (f) of the Participant Acknowledgments are deleted. 


 

	6.	Effective Date of this Amendment. This Amendment 2 is effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of the IPO. 


 

	7.	Continued Terms of Option. Except as otherwise amended in this Agreement, your Option remains subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the Award
Agreement, Amendment 1, and the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and you acknowledge that a copy of the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan has been provided to you. 

 Please indicate your acceptance of this Amendment 2 to the Award Agreement with respect to your Option by signing and returning a copy of this Amendment 2 to the address set forth below as soon as
practicable. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	  
	Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	
	Agreed to and Accepted by:
	
	  


  
 2 

 8166868.1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3495

JLG Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
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
   (i)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Jeffrey L. KarafaJeffrey L. KarafaTreasurer and Chief Financial
Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2855

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2555

Primex Family of Companies:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
### Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm

*** ***

* *

* *

* *

# M-Systems, Inc.

# Newark,California

# * *

# We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form F-3/Amendment No. 3 (File No. 333-109338) and Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-54356) of M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd. (the "Company") of ourreport dated January 8, 2003, relating to the financial statements ofM-Systems, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company) appearing in theCompany`s Form 6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onFebruary 2, 2004 and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form20-F.

# * *

# * *

# * *

# /S/ BDO Seidman,LLP

# * *

# San Jose,California

# June 24, 2004

 

**____ 1 ____**
A ft erexami ni ng t he appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n t he det er m i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10t h C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 15,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

RO NA LD K . BA SS ETT, Pet i t i oner - A ppel l ee, v. R . W I L E Y , W ar den, R e sp o n d e n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 1514 D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV - 3 7 4 - WYD)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , Mc WI L L I A MS , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. T h e a b a tem e n t en ter e d in th is m a tter o rig in a llyo n Ja n u a ry2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , is l i ft ed. I n acc or d w i t h t he r es pons e t he governm ents ubm i t t ed t o ouror derdat ed Febr uar y21, 2007, and more par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof ouropi ni on i n Wedels t edtv. Wi l ey , __F. 3d__, N o. 06- 1461, 2007 W L 512517 ( 10t h C i r . Feb. 20, 2007) , t he- 2-

j u d g me n t o f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n t h i s ma t t e ri s AF F I RMED . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , PerC ur i am
#### Louis E. FINLAY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. D-2792.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1993.

Rehearing Overruled April 21, 1993.

Ellen Finlay, Ronald E. Cook, Houston, for petitioner.

David Groveman, Nick Turner, Houston, for respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION TO ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

DOGGETT, Justice,

dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in my opinion today in *Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.,*I dissent from the decision to withdraw as improvident the court’s order of December 31, 1992, granting the application for writ of error.

GAMMAGE and SPECTOR, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 489 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 489

 To provide that the notice titled ``Designating Aliens for Expedited 
  Removal'' shall be given the full force and effect of law, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2023

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the notice titled ``Designating Aliens for Expedited 
  Removal'' shall be given the full force and effect of law, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Expedited Removal Codification Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATING ALIENS FOR EXPEDITED REMOVAL.

    The notice titled, ``Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal'', 
issued by the Department of Homeland Security on July 23, 2019 (84 Fed. 
Reg. 35409), shall have the full force and effect of law.
                                 <all>
```
#### WILLIS ROBERTSON v. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY et al.

(Filed 12 July, 1933.)

New Trial B g — This case is remanded in order that new trial may ho awarded if it is found that testimony of material witness was false.

In this case defendant moved in the Supreme Court for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and filed an affidavit of a material witness repudiating his testimony upon the trial. Plaintiff took deposition of the witness in which the witness swore that the affidavit was false. In the Supreme Court the case together with the motion is *112remanded to tlie Superior Court to the end that the court with the aid of the solicitor may investigate the charges and counter-charges, and that a new trial may be awarded if it be ascertained that the witness’ testimony upon the trial was false.

MotioN by defendant for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence.

Original opinion reported, 204 N. 0., 359.

*E. L. Oweiis and Ward & Grimes for plaintiff. ■*

*T. Justin Moore, Zeb Vance Norman and Spruill & Spruill for defendants.*

Stacy, O. J.

Petition to rebear for the purpose of lodging motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence was filed in this cause immediately upon delivery of the opinion, 15 March, 1933, under authority of what was said in *Allen v. Gooding,*174 N. C., 271, 93 S. E., 740.

The motion for a new trial is accompanied by an affidavit signed by Maurice Whidbee in which he retracts his testimony given on the hearing. He stated on the trial that he saw employees of the defendant set fire to a yellow jackets’ nest which spread from defendant’s right of way to plaintiff’s woods. In the affidavit filed here, it is said this testimony was wrong, “the fact is I know nothing about the origin of the fire.”

Thereafter, the plaintiff took the deposition of Morris Whedbee or Maurice Whidbee, the affiant, in which he says the affidavit is false, and that he was suborned by one Elmer Jackson to make it. This is categorically denied by Jackson.

Thus, it appears that a material witness for the plaintiff on the hearing has first repudiated and then repudiated the repudiation of his testimony in this Court on the defendant’s motion for a new trial. We do not know where the truth lies, nor how the witness might testify on another hearing, if, indeed, this may now be regarded as a determining factor in the matter. The case, therefore, together with the motion, will be remanded to the Superior Court of Washington County, to the end that the charges and counter-charges may there be investigated with the aid of the solicitor, if needed. And if it should be found that the testimony given by the witness on the trial was false, the Superior Court wall award a new trial; otherwise not. This course seems necessary in view of the unusuality of the record.

Bemanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  299,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,060,094
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 556,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,655
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   556,094
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,358,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,355,337)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,355,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,355,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

01-14-00447-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/20/2015 1:36:44 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/20/2015 1:36:44 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### Theodora A. SYDNOR, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. WD 50390.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 8, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 3, 1995.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Karl L. Madden, Jr., Moberly, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVER STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue appeals the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 74.06(b)(4). Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### CARLTON BRUCE PRIEST v. VERNON LEE THOMPSON.

(Filed 10 May, 1961.)

Negligence § 7—

Nonsuit held proper in this action to recover for injuries resulting when plaintiff was struck by the blade of the fan which broke off and struck plaintiff while he was looking under the hood of defendant’s car to locate mechanical trouble as defendant, after having accelerated the engine, turned off the switch, since such result was not reasonably foreseeable.

*674Appeal by plaintiff from *Williams, J.*November, 1960 Term, BladeN Superior Court.

Civil action to recover for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as a result of defendant’s actionable negligence.

While the plaintiff, the defendant, and three others were on their way from their homes in Bladen County to their work on a construction job in Greensboro, and while it was yet dark, a noise developed under the hood of the defendant’s Chevrolet in which all were riding. The defendant and one of the passengers, by the aid of a flashlight, attempted to locate the trouble, having raised the hood for that purpose. During their examination the plaintiff, who was a mechanic, moved under the wheel and accelerated the engine by pressing on the gas feed. Thereupon, the plaintiff got out of the vehicle and by the use of the light, attempted to find the cause of the trouble. In the meantime, the defendant got back under the wheel, accelerated the engine, and then cut off the switch. Immediately, one of the blades of the fan broke off and struck the plaintiff, putting out one eye and inflicting serious head and some brain injury. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the court entered judgment of compulsory nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.

*Frank T. Grady, for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Anderson, Nimocks & Broadfoot, for defendant, appellee.*

PeR Curiam.

The plaintiff’s evidence disclosed he was the only mechanic in the party. While the defendant examined the engine the plaintiff accelerated it. The two changed places. The mechanic was in the act of making the examination and the owner, back under the wheel, accelerated the engine. As the switch was cut off, one of the blades separated from the hub of the fan, striking the plaintiff and causing his injury. The evidence does not disclose how or by what means either party could reasonably foresee such injurious consequences. Hence the judgment of nonsuit was proper and is

Affirmed.