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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,263
<SECURITIES>                                     2,047
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,708<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,182
<PP&E>                                          30,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,995
<BONDS>                                          2,996
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,535
<SALES>                                         26,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,467
<CGS>                                           16,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,338
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
<FN>
<F1>note: receivables shown net of allowance of 340
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3019

___________ Marsha L. Allee, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * AG Processing, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 22, 1996 Filed: April 29, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Marsha Allee sued her former employer, AG Processing, Inc., alleging that she was discriminated against and eventually discharged for engaging in activity protected by federal law. The District Cou rt granted 1 AG Processing's motion for summary judgment, and Allee appeals. Havin g considered the briefs and arguments of the parties and th e record on appeal, we conclude that the District Court did not err i n granting summary judgment in favor of AG Processing. Because no error of law appears and an ex tended opinion by this Court would lack precedential value, we affirm the judgment of the District Court without furthe r discussion.

### -2- AG Proces sing is awarded its costs. Its motion pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for damages, including attorne y fees and double costs, is denied. AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 9, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between May 2008 and September 2008 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 16, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34327).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E8-24288 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
April 15, 2009, the whole subject to the discretion of BCE Inc.’s board of directors. The new dividend policy was adopted with the objective of allowing sufficient financial flexibility to continue investing in BCE Inc.’s business while growingreturns to shareholders. Under this dividend policy, increases in the common share dividend will be directly linked to growth in BCE Inc.’s Adjusted EPS.****

Refer to *Our Competitive Environment*and *Assumptions And**Risks That Could Affect Our Business And Results* in the BCE 2008 MD&A, at pages 53 to 56 and pages 63 to 69, respectively, of the BCE 2008 Annual Report, which pagesare incorporated by reference herein and, in particular, to the risk entitled *We cannot guarantee that BCE’s dividend policy will be maintained,*for a description of risks that could affect BCE Inc.’s dividend policy.

Subject to being declared by the board of directors, BCE Inc. pays dividends on its preferred shares every quarter, except for dividends on Series S, Series Y, Series AB, Series AD, Series AE and Series AH preferred shares, which BCE Inc. declaresand pays monthly. 

The table below shows the amount of cash dividends declared per share of each class of BCE Inc. shares for 2008, 2007, and 2006.

 

----
#### HOPKINS v. SOUTHALL.

No. 4576.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1933.

W. D. Cotton, of Rayville, for appellant.

Anders & Anders, of Winnsboro, for ap-pellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the mortgage note of J. M. Southall for $125, dated November 16, 1932, due October 1, 1933, and secured by duly registered mortgage on one Ford roadster automobile. The mortgage and note are in authentic form. Judgment is confessed by the mortgagor, and tihe pact de non is embodied in the mortgage. The note and a certified copy of the mortgage are attached to, and made part of, the petition.

This suit, an executory process, is against C. S. Southall, alleged third possessor of the mortgaged car. It is alleged that the “necessary demand of thirty days upon the mortgage debtor for payment of said note” has been made, and that the third possessor has been notified of the demand upon said mortgagor, as required by law, for more than ten days, but said note remains unpaid. Execu-tory process was prayed for, and order therefor signed by the clerk of court. C.' S. South-all appealed suspensively from this order. In this court he filed exception of no cause of action. In his brief there are eight specific points urged in support of the exception. We find it unnecessary to discuss and pass upon but one of these, viz.: “Second: That the said note matures on October 1, 1933 — yet this executory proceeding was brought on January 27, 1933 — more than nine months before the maturity of the obligation.”

The note did not mature, according to its own tenor, until October 1, 1933. The suit was filed January 27, previous. There is no stipulation in the mortgage that, should the mortgagor sell or. transfer the mortgaged automobile, the holder of the note 'had the right or option, in that event, to declare the note due and exigible; and, in the absence of such a provision, the mere fact of sale or transfer of the ear would not bring about the maturity of the note or mortgage. It is alleged in the petition that the mortgage contains the “pact de non alienando,” and that judgment was confessed by the mortgagor, who consented that, if the stipulations and terms of the note and act of mortgage were violated, “said property might be seized and sold by executo-ry process,” etc. The mortgage authorizes issuance of executory process when the note matures according to its terms, but, as stated above, there appears nothing therein to authorize its holder to hasten -maturity for violation of the mortgage’s provisions.

Manifestly, therefore, plaintiff was without the right to institute this foreclosure suit at the time he did so. No cause of action then reposed in him.

The exception of no cause of action is sustained on the ground above discussed; the order of executory process issued herein is annulled and set aside, and plaintiff’s suit dismissed at his cost.
#### Marcus P. HICKS, Appellant, v. Catherine M. HICKS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

April 9, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000


       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MONTHS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                               0      
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                   485,438
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               612,598
<PP&E>                         552,907    
<DEPRECIATION>              <2,032,151>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               1,188,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        1,622,520
<BONDS>                              0
<COMMON>                       752,557     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          176,959
<PREFERRED>                    100,000         
<OTHER-SE>                  <1,567,153>    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 1,188,159  
<SALES>                        896,212         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               286,588
<CGS>                          609,624                  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  286,588         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                58,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              57,926         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      0            
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             29,953
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    29,953     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0
        

</PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-2650-RBJ

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY as subrogee of Chet Hayes,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INTERMOUNTAIN RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

ORDER SETTING TRIAL AND FINAL PRETRIAL/TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE

This matter has been scheduled for a two-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A902, 9th Floor, 901 19th Street, 

Denver, Colorado, to commence on July 9, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. 

A Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference is set for June 13, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

Counsel who will try the case shall attend in person. 

During the Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference the parties should be prepared to 

address: jury instructions, jury selection, witnesses and evidence, anticipated evidentiary issues, 

stipulations as to fact, and any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

For additional information, please review my practice standards located at 

www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx.

Case 1:11-cv-02650-RBJ-BNB Document 17 Filed 01/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02650-RBJ-BNB Document 17 Filed 01/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 10.3(c)
 2003-000021-i
 HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRACT
NO. 03-021 FOR THE
 SOUTH WEST HEALTH REGION
BETWEEN
PUERTO RICO HEALTH INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
AND
TRIPLE S, INC.
 31th day of October, 2006 PUERTO RICO HEALTH INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION Minerva Rivera, Esq. TRIPLE S, INC. INSURER Socorro Rivas
 WITNESSETH
  WHEREAS: ADMINISTRATION INSURER st South West Health Area/Region Adjuntas, Guánica, Guayanilla, Jayuya, Peñuelas, Ponce and Yauco.




---



##### 



WHEREAS: ADMINISTRATION  st st
 HENCEFORTH:
 ARTICLE XVIII
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
 In Article XVIII paragraph three (3) letters (a) to (e) are deleted, substituted with the following
to read as follows:
 3.
    
    a.The final monthly premiums rates for all beneficiaries, including all those who are
sixty-five (65) years and older who are Medicare beneficiaries Part A or Part A and B those
who are sixty-five years and older who are not Medicare recipients is establish in sixty
six dollars and sixty cents ($66.60) per member per
month (pmpm).
 b.
    
    The aforementioned premium rate constitutes the finalrates for the period
beginning July 1st, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Payments will be made from
account number 5030-113.c.
    
    The premium payments made July 1st, 2006 to October 31, 2006, will
be adjust to reflect the difference between that interim rate and this final agreed
premium rate. The stop-loss for the 4 months period will be $5,500.00.d.
    
    For the period beginning November 1st, 2006 to September 30, 2007 a
different rate will be negotiated between the parties in accordance with the new
coverage that will become effective on November 1st, 2006.
 2




---



##### 



The present amendments take precedence and shall prevail over any remaining sections and articles
of the contract which are maintained but could conflict with these amendments.
 31 day of October, 2006.
 /s/ MINERVA RIVERA, ESQ

MINERVA RIVERA, ESQExecutive DirectorPuerto Rico Health Insurance Administration/s/ SOCORRO RIVAS

SOCORRO RIVASChief Executive OfficerTriple S, Inc./s/ LUIS A. MARINI, DMD

LUIS A. MARINI, DMDChief Executive OfficerTriple-C, Inc.
 3
#### In the Matter of the Abrogation of the Voluntary Adoption of Anonymous.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

May 23, 1957.

*Julia L. Seider*for petitioners.

*Lloyd P. Dodge, County Attorney (Edwin S. Lapbam*of counsel), in opposition.

*Gordon M. Lipets,*special guardian for infant.

Edgar F. Hazleton, S.

This is a proceeding brought by petitioners under section 118 of the Domestic Relations Law, to abrogate the adoption of a 12-year-old boy, whom they adopted over 9 years ago. The boy has since resided continuously with petitioners. The mother of the boy has joined in the proceeding and prays that same be granted.

At about the time petitioners adopted this boy, they also adopted a girl. They have been good parents and I believe have done all they are capable of doing to win the love and *84affection of this boy. However, the boy has totally failed to respond, and although he does very well in his school work, his conduct is consistently very bad. He is a problem child, and totally fails to adjust. There is evidence of abnormal acts which need not be mentioned. The psychiatrist reports that *“*the child must receive psychiatric treatment.” I have interviewed the child and agree. He insists he does not love his foster parents and does not wish to live with them. He is at present under the supervision of the Department of Public Welfare.

It is clear to me that because of the persistent ill behavior of this boy, his need of psychiatric therapy and abnormal conduct, this application should be granted. I am not only considering the welfare of this boy but also the possible danger from his presence to his sister. As he grows older, his conduct is becoming worse. He may be corrected and cured, but never under present conditions.

I find that due regard to the interests of both the parents and the child requires that the adoption under consideration be abrogated. (See *Matter of Eaton,*305 N. Y. 162.)

Proceed accordingly.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.52

                                FIFTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                                NOVA CORPORATION
                      1996 EMPLOYEES STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


         This Fifth Amendment to the NOVA Corporation 1996 Employees Stock
Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), made as of the day and year noted on the last page
hereof, by NOVA Corporation (the "Company"), to be effective as noted below.


                                  WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company sponsors and maintains the Plan for the exclusive
benefit of its eligible employees and their beneficiaries, and pursuant to
Section 12.1 thereof, the Company has the right to amend the Plan at any time,
subject to Section 12.2 of the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan at this time for the
purpose of adding a definition of "continuing director," which definition was
intended to be included in the final version of the Plan as adopted by the
Board of Directors and the shareholders of the Company, but which was
inadvertently omitted;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows effective as of January
1, 2000:

                                       1.

         Article 2 of the Plan is amended by adding a new Section 2.11 to read
as follows (with the remaining sections of Article 2 to be sequentially
renumbered accordingly):

            2.11 CONTINUING DIRECTOR shall mean a Director (i) who was a
                Director as of the Effective Date, or (ii) who becomes a
                Director subsequent to the Effective Date and whose election or
                nomination for election by the Board was Duly Approved by
                Directors at the time of such election or nomination who were
                Directors as of the Effective Date, whether by a specific vote
                or by approval of the proxy statement issued by the Company on
                behalf of the Board of Directors.

                                       2.

         All other provisions of the Plan not inconsistent herewith are hereby
confirmed and ratified.


         ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON FEBRUARY 24, 2000.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Date: October 7, 2011 Deputy Clerk: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Kara Spitler

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02604-CMA

Parties: Counsel:

NUCOMPASS MOBILITY SERVICES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

John M. McCormack

NCOMPASS MOBILITY PTE LTD,

Defendant.

Steve Hullman

Michael C. Theis

COURTROOM MINUTES

Telephonic Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for

Preliminary Injunction [#4]

2:59 p.m. Court in session.

Appearances of counsel. 

Opening statements by the Court.

Discussion regarding the supplemental declaration. 

Argument by Mr. McCormack and Mr. Hullman.

ORDERED: Plaintiff NuCompass Mobility Services Inc.’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [Doc.

Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 15 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
#4] is DENIED.

ORDERED: The Defendant shall display prominently at its site at the trade show a sign

at least 3'x3' in diameter and in large, easily readable letters with the

following disclaimers:

1. That it is not associated with NuCompass Mobility Services, Inc. in

any way;

2. That it only does business in Asia;

3. That NuCompass Mobility Services, Inc. has a booth and is

exhibiting in this trade show; and

4. That Ncompass Mobility Pte Ltd urges people who visit its booth to

also visit NuCompass Mobility Services, Inc.’s booth in the trade

show.

ORDERED: Representatives of NuCompass Mobility Services, Inc. are permitted to

view where and how the sign will be displayed in the booth before the trade

show opens. If NuCompass Mobility Services, Inc. believes the Defendant

has not complied with the Court’s order, they may contact the Court for

further action.

3:35 p.m. Court in recess.

Hearing concluded.

Total time in court: 00:36

Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 15 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH

CHERYL ARABALO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DENVER, COUNTY OF DENVER, through its elected officials, the Denver City

Council,

ASHLEY KILROY, in his official capacity as Acting Safety Manager for the City and County of

Denver, 

CAPTAIN GUTIERREZ, and

PHILLIP DEEDS, 

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 5, 2012.

The Stipulated Motion for Protective Order [filed May 31, 2012; docket #61] is granted. 

The proposed Stipulated Protective Order is accepted, issued and filed contemporaneously with this

minute order.

 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH Document 64 Filed 06/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1