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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,096
<PP&E>                                          45,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,763
<SALES>                                          8,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,081
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,551
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,551
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
April 17, 2014


 


Michael Steib


 


Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement


 


Dear Michael,


 


You
and XO Group Inc. (the “Company”) entered into an employment agreement dated June 28, 2013 (the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


This
amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) amends the Employment Agreement to restate the
definition of “Good Reason” to read as follows:


 


“d.           For
purposes of this Agreement, “Good Reason” shall mean, without Executive’s written consent: (i) a
material reduction in Executive’s then current Base Salary or annual bonus or LTIP opportunity; (ii) a relocation of Executive’s
principal place of business by more than 20 miles; (iii) a material breach of this Agreement by the Company; (iv) any diminution
of Executive’s title; (v) a material diminution in Executive’s duties, authorities or responsibilities as set forth
in Section 2(a) of this Agreement or any breach of the second sentence of Section 2(a); (vi) a change in the reporting structure
whereby (A) Executive is required to report to a Company officer other than the CEO or to a CEO other than David Liu, or (B) after
June 30, 2014, any one or more of the non-CEO executive officers do not report directly to Executive or his designee; or (vii)
at any time after a Change in Control (as defined below), the material and repeated interference by the Board with the discharge
of Executive’s duties, authorities or responsibilities hereunder; provided that Good Reason shall only be deemed to
have occurred if, no later than thirty (30) days following the time Executive learns of the circumstances constituting Good Reason,
Executive provides a written notice to the Company containing reasonable details of such circumstances and within thirty (30) days
following the delivery of such notice to the Company, the Company has failed to cure such circumstances. Additionally, Executive
must terminate his employment within six (6) months of Executive’s knowledge of the occurrence of the circumstances constituting
Good Reason for such termination to be Good Reason.”


 


This Amendment may be
executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and
the same instrument.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


To
the extent not expressly amended hereby, your Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect. Please indicate your
agreement to the above terms by signing below.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	XO GROUP INC.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Gillian Munson
	 	Gillian Munson
	 	Chief Financial Officer


 


	ACCEPTED
    AND AGREED:	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Michael Steib	 
	Michael Steib
    	 
	 	 
	Dated:	April 17, 2014
23tf& -21*, 1i

COURT OF CRIMINAL APP

teik \/uR-35. 3/0-^7

~VU^4- are. ^o^ <2,u<_-,tfwC, Q& *S\rC>\t- &^qI Pec*W^ (

~~^L\s boui-4: "I-"s dUo^-V 4d U-^ ^V 0^ 4rr9-w~r

Sxr^eV uli'A5 «6t\Urc 4o \oo^^l^^^;X
#### Wade F. TUNNELL v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 1665.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Judd L. Black, of Oklahoma City, Old., for appellant.

William C. Lewis, U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl.

Before'LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant at appellant’s costs.
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

###### Health Resources and Services Administration 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anyone requiring information regarding the ACCV should contact Michelle Herzog, DVIC, HSB, HRSA, Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone (301) 443-6593 or e-mail:                         *mherzog@hrsa.gov.*

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Alexandra Huttinger, 

Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.

[FR Doc. E8-18630 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
Exhibit 32.1




                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                       OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     The  undersigned  hereby  certify that, to the best of the knowledge of the
undersigned, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2004 filed by PHC,  Inc.  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained  in the report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.



Date:  September 24, 2004               By:  /s/ Bruce A. Shear
                                                 ________________________
                                                 Bruce A. Shear, President
                                                 and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  September 24, 2004               By:  /s/ Paula C. Wurts
                                                 Paula C. Wurts, Controller
                                                 and Chief Financial Officer


                                     - 75 -
No. 77-952.

#### Group Life & Health Insurance Co., aka Blue Shield of Texas, et al. *v.*Royal Drug Co., Inc., dba Royal Pharmacy of Castle Hills et al., et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Blue Shield Assn, for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*and certiorari granted.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, Case No. 09-20326 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

CLARENCE HENRY COHEN (D-9), 

 

 Defendant-Petitioner. 

_______________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion and order entered this date, 

Defendant-Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: January 8, 2024 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on January 8, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Lisa Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 626, PageID.2888 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 1
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 481

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections to

maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mrs. FOWLER (for herself, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. GOSS, Mr. MICA, Mr. PETERSON

of Florida, Mrs. THURMAN, and Mr. CALLAHAN) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical

corrections to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

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

3 SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior

5 shall, before the end of the 30-day period beginning on

6 the date of the enactment of this Act, make such correc7 tions to the maps described in subsection (b) as are nec8 essary to ensure that—
2

•HR 481 IH

1 (1) depictions of areas on those maps are con2 sistent with the depictions of areas appearing on the

3 maps entitled lllllll, dated

4 lllllll, and on file with the Secretary;

5 and

6 (2) the Coastal Barrier Resources System does

7 not include any area that, on the day before the date

8 of the enactment of this Act, was part of unit Q01

9 of that System.

10 (b) MAPS DESCRIBED.—The maps described in this

11 subsection are maps that—

12 (1) are included in a set of maps entitled

13 ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’, dated October

14 24, 1990; and

15 (2) relate to the following units of the Coastal

16 Barrier Resources System: P04A, P05, P05A, P08,

17 P10, P11A, P18, P25, FL–90.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 477 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 477

To amend the Clean Air Act to allow emission reductions caused by fleet 
 turnover to be credited to the emission reduction requirements of the 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

  Mr. DeLay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to allow emission reductions caused by fleet 
 turnover to be credited to the emission reduction requirements of the 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. FLEET TURNOVER EMISSION REDUCTIONS.

    Section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and 
following) is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 
``Emission reduction attributable to fleet turnover shall also be 
creditable against such required reduction.''.
                                 <all>
```
|EXHIBIT 21.1


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
|-----------------------------------

|SUBSIDIARY                             | STATE OF INCORPORATION | DOES BUSINESS AS
|-------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------
|Arch Canada Inc.                       | Ontario, Canada        |                 
|Arch Wireless Communications, Inc.     | Delaware              
|Arch Wireless Holdings, Inc.           | Delaware              
|MobileMedia Communications, Inc.       | Delaware              
|Arch Wireless Operating Company, Inc.  | Delaware               | Arch Wireless   
|Arch Wireless License Co., LLC         | Delaware              
|Paging Network Canadian Holdings, Inc. | Delaware              
|Paging Network International, Inc.     | Delaware              
|Paging Network of Canada, Inc.         | Canada
No. 12,675.

#### Ovide Landry vs. The Adeline Sugar Factory Company, Limited.

Where the record is not in condition toclose the controversy, unless there is manifest reason for a different course, the court in the interest of all parties will remand the cause.

*543APPEAL from the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Mary. *Allen, J.*

*D. Caffery & Son*and *J. Sully Martel*for Plaintiff, Appellant.

*Philip*H. *Mentz*and *Carroll & Carroll*for Defendant, Appellee.

Argued and submitted January 25, 1898.

Opinion handed down May 16, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

It is insisted this case depends upon and is supported by the same proof that is applicable to the demand of the plaintiff, Rene F. Delahoussaye, against the same defendant presented on the appeal just decided. The suits of Delahoussaye and the plaintiff, Landry, were brought at the same time; were tried together, and brought up as consolidated in one record. The judgment in favor of Delahoussaye is based upon the testimony, in our view, exhibiting the modification of his contract with defendant. Our examination of the record has not enabled us to reach the same conclusion as to the contract of Landry made after the communications between Delahoussaye and the defendants, which, we think, with other facts, show that the original contract between Delahoussaye and the defendant was changed. We reserve our opinion on the point whether there is the same basis of fact to hold that the plaintiff’s contract was modified. It strikes us the litigation may have been conducted on the theory that this court would consider the testimony of Delahoussaye, as establishing the modification of the contract asserted by him, as equally applicable to show the modification of Landry’s contract. On that point we are not clear. We have concluded it is best calculated to secure the rights of the parties to remand this case that it may come before us again on all the issues it presents, with such additional testimony as the parties may deem proper to offer.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the lower court be avoided and annulled, and that this suit be remanded to the lower court for another trial, the costs to be paid by appellees.
* 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. 97-40201 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CR-22-12

- - - - - - - - - - August 15, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Bell pleaded guilty to count 28 of an indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base and has appealed his sentence. Bell contends that the district court erred in considering information provided by an unidentified confidential informant in calculating Bell’s base offense level when the only corroborating information was supplied by Bell during a confidential debriefing. Bell failed to present any evidence showing that the information usedNo. 97-40201 -2- to calculate his sentence was untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable. In the absence of such evidence, the presentence report provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the factual determination, and the district court did not err in accepting the information as
true. United States v. Valencia , 44 F.3d 269, 274 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
#### Ida S. Waring, as Executrix, etc., of Milton V. Waring, Deceased, Appellant, v. John Aspinwall, Respondent.

Order setting aside verdict and granting new trial affirmed, .with costs. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

# AGENCY:

NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the International Trade Administration's Final Scope Ruling Regarding Entries Made Under HTSUS 4409.10.05 in Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2006-1904-05). 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Order of the Binational Panel dated June 25, 2008, the determination described above was completed on June 25, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On June 25, 2008, the Binational Panel issued a memorandum opinion and order, which granted the International Trade Administration's Motion to Dismiss the Complaints, concerning Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. The Secretariat was instructed to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel Review on the 31st day following the issuance of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if no request for an Extraordinary Challenge was filed. No such request was filed. Therefore, on the basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 of the                     *Article 1904 Panel Rules,*                     the Panel Review was completed and the panelists were discharged from their duties effective June 25, 2008.                 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Valerie Dees, 

United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.

[FR Doc. E8-18637 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                      
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                       -------------------------------
                                      

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-80147) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1994 Directors'
Stock Option Plan and Directors' Warrants of SigmaTron International, Inc. of
our report dated June 20, 1997, except for Note 16, as to which the date is July
1, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
SigmaTron International, Inc included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended April 30, 1997. 

                                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP 



Chicago, Illinois 
July 14, 1997
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

s1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139406 

TRUDY JO SIMCOX, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139406 

 COA: 284287 

Genesee CC: 07-277268-DM 

BLAIR RICHARD SIMCOX, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.