alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.60



Exhibit 10.60





November 12, 2003





Gil Rossomando, President

Lindley Food Service Corporation

201 Wallace Street

New Haven, CT 06511








Dear Mr. Rossomando:





This letter serves as documentation for extension of the “Emergency Food Preparation Agreement” between the Suburban Boston Consortium of Elder Nutrition Programs and Host America
Corporation / Lindley Food Service Corporation noted in the first term of the existing contract.





The term of this extension is from March 17th, 2004 through September 30, 2004.

All terms under the existing “Emergency Food Preparation Agreement” shall apply during the terms of this extension in addition to the following terms as agreed upon by both parties:





	
1.  

	
At the end of each billing period, a $.10 credit for each meal ordered (regular congregate and HDM) will be applied to each agencies account  (MVES, SCES & Springwell) for the purpose of improving overall services, delivery,
the addition of special meals and other non-traditional items.  The credit is not intended to reduce the net cost of the invoice but rather to purchase additional or upgraded menu or service items.  Use of this credit is not to exceed $5000.00 in any given
month.


	
   

	
   


		
Any remaining credit due to the Consortium member agencies at the end of the contract on September 30, 2004 will be used to reduce the September 2004 bill, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties. 


	
   

	
   


	
2.  

	
A choice menu will be added at no additional cost to the Consortium’s congregate meal sites.  This menu will include a second menu choice of soup, sandwich, salad and dessert from the standard menu currently in place. 
The target time frame for beginning this is January 2004. 


	
   

	
   


	
3.  

	
One additional special menu item per month will be added to the standard current menu (i.e.: ice cream with cake).  This additional menu item is at no cost to the Consortium and not charged against any credits noted in #1 above.
This special menu item program will begin as soon as both parties have signed this contract extension.











Host America Corporation                           Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services, Inc.

____________________date_______    ________________________date________





Mystic Valley Elder Services, Inc.                           Springwell, Inc.

____________________date_______    ________________________date________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000719958  
<NAME>                             DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1983-1 LTD PARTNERSHIP
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                256,491
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         143,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      399,816
<PP&E>                             35,524,180
<DEPRECIATION>                     35,037,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        912,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  31,070
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            739,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          912,798
<SALES>                               970,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      981,003
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         539,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       441,423
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   441,423
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          441,423
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           57.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-02482-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02482-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02482-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation  Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On August 22, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. Permits were issued on September 26, 2008 to:                 

Lisa K. Blatt, Permit No. 2009-010. 

Hubertus Staudigel, Permit No. 2009-016. 

Cheryl E. Leonard, Permit No. 2009-017. 

Mahlon C. Kennicutt, II, Permit No. 2009-018. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-23714 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      51,413,000
<SECURITIES>                                43,795,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,763,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 68,644,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           202,260,000
<PP&E>                                      91,048,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              53,162,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             240,146,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       60,221,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       264,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 175,215,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               240,146,000
<SALES>                                    480,348,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           480,348,000
<CGS>                                      357,137,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              357,137,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               987,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             35,837,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,722,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,115,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,115,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84


</TABLE>
#### Johnny William SHERIDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45165.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1972.

Haynes & Fullenweider, by Richard Haynes, Michael Ramsey, Robert B. Wallis, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and John B. Holmes, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of marihuana. Punishment was assessed by the jury at three years.

The record reflects that officers recovered a quantity of marihuana from appellant’s residence in the 2300 block of Nicholson in Houston, on July 14, 1970.

Appellant contends the officers lacked probable cause to search his house and that without a showing of consent or pursuit and arrest, the Fourth Amendment precludes the search of a dwelling place without a warrant.

At the penalty stage of the trial, appellant took the stand in an apparent attempt *921to mitigate the circumstances of the offense, and on direct examination, testified:

> *“Q*Do you deny the possession of the marihuana ?

> “A No sir.”

> ******

> *“Q*And you haven’t denied it?

> “A No sir.”

The appellant, having voluntarily taken the stand at the penalty stage and on direct examination admitted having marihuana in his possession, cannot question the lawfulness of the search wherein the marihuana was seized. Palmer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 797. See also Boothe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 219; Richardson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 665. In Bradley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 527, it was said, “This Court has held many times that the legality of the search need not be considered when the defendant testifies to or otherwise produces evidence of the same facts or if such facts are in the record without objection.” See Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 745 (6/28/72).

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Nathaniel KING v. STATE.

3 Div. 762.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 14, 1935.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK GREGORY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CR-96-41, CA-01-573)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 26, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Gregory seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Gregory, Nos. CR-96-41; CA-01-573

(E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
#### JOHN L. HIGGINS, APPELLANT, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the appellant, *William K. Flanagan.*

For the respondent, *Walter D. Van*Riper, Attorney-General, *(John W.*Griggs, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel).

Pee Cueiam:.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bodine in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Donges, Heher, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
#### Carlos F. Cabezas et al., Respondents, v Consolidated Edison, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[745 NYS2d 210]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Consolidated Edison appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated April 12, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for partial summary judgment against it on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for partial summary judgment on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) is denied, that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against it is granted, and that cause of action is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The plaintiff Carlos Francisco Cabezas was injured when he and a coworker were unloading concrete conduit pipes from the flatbed of a truck at a construction site. The injured plaintiff, who was positioned on the ground, failed to grasp one of the pipes passed to him by the coworker from the flatbed of the truck, and the pipe fell on his foot. The plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) against the defendant Consolidated Edison, which had hired his employer to install the pipes. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for partial summary judgment on that cause of action, and denied that *523branch of Consolidated Edison’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against it.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the risk he faced at the time he was injured was not a special hazard that Labor Law § 240 (1) was designed to address. Rather, it was the type of ordinary risk inherent in construction work. The task of unloading a truck is not an elevation-related risk simply because there is a difference in elevation between the ground and the truck bed *(see Jacome v State of New York,*266 AD2d 345; *Tillman v Triou’s Custom Homes,*253 AD2d 254; *Phelan v State of New York,*238 AD2d 882; *Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc.,*96 NY2d 259; *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494; *Carroll v Timko Contr. Corp.,*264 AD2d 706; *see also Rodriguez v Margaret Tietz Ctr. For Nursing Care,*84 NY2d 841). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for partial summary judgment on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) is denied, and that branch of Consolidated Edison’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against it is granted. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
Golden Cycle Gold Corporation
and Subsidiary
Consolidated Financial Statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996            
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                      36,268
<SECURITIES>                                      2,305,866
<RECEIVABLES>                                         9,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,352,010
<PP&E>                                                     792,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                   401,124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,743,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        18,710
<BONDS>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                          2,724,361
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,743,071
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             596,044
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     451,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               144,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      144,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                      144,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .08
        

</TABLE>
#### **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

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 ofthe United States Code), the undersigned officer of Golden Cycle GoldCorporation, (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the AnnualReport of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2004 (the “Report”) that:

 

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

 

2.            The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 30, 2005 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
|                      |   /s/ R. Herbert Hampton |
|                      |   R. Herbert Hampton |
|                      |   |
|                      |   Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH

KENNETH CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

USAA AUTO INJURY SOLUTIONS,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Brimmer, Judge

Plaintiff has submitted a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff previously was allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this court in this action. The court has examined the file and has

determined that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be denied. Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court finds that this appeal is not taken in good faith

because plaintiff has not shown the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in

support of the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because this appeal is not

taken in good faith.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 2nd day of May, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer 

 JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 25 Filed 05/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59688-59689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23932]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, 
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 24b-1, OMB Control No. 3235-0194, SEC File No. 270-205.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    <bullet> Rule 24b-1 (17 CFR 240.24b-1)--Documents to be Kept Public 
by Exchanges.
    Rule 24b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a 
et seq.) requires a national securities exchange to keep and make 
available for public inspection a copy of its registration statement 
and exhibits filed with the Commission, along with any amendments 
thereto.
    There are eleven national securities exchanges that spend 
approximately one half hour each complying with this rule, for an 
aggregate total compliance burden of five and one half hours per year. 
The staff estimates that the average cost per respondent is $65.18 per 
year, calculated as the costs of copying ($13.97) plus storage 
($51.21), resulting in a total cost of compliance for the respondents 
of $716.98.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate 
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and

[[Page 59689]]

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o 
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send 
an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ebbbb9aab4a68a8287898493ab988e88c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de8e8c9f8193bfb7b2bcb1a69eadbbbdf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23932 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>