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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         788,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,224,587
<PP&E>                                      30,021,788
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,219,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,027,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,895,835
<BONDS>                                     33,234,751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,868,555)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,027,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,177,729
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,095,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               413,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,445,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                223,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            223,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   223,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.00<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EPS - Primary - in this RELP the earnings per share indicate income per
Class A LP unit.
<F2>EPS - Diluted - in this RELP the earnings per share indicate income per
Class B LP unit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Hack the Air Force results releasedPublished Aug. 10, 2017
                        
                        By Senior Airman Rusty Frank
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --**
                The results are in for Hack the Air Force, the “white-hat hacker” bug bounty program designed to better secure Air Force online assets that ran May 30-June 23, 2017.
Bug bounty programs are an industry standard practice that helps better secure an organization’s internet presence. These programs crowd source sanctioned hackers to identify vulnerabilities within systems, which then allows the organization to quickly remedy those vulnerabilities.  
“Adversaries are constantly attempting to attack our websites, so we welcome a second opinion — and in this case, hundreds of second opinions — on the health and security of our online infrastructure,” said Peter Kim, the Air Force Chief Information Security Officer. “By engaging a global army of security researchers, we’re better able to assess our vulnerabilities and protect the Air Force’s efforts in the skies, on the ground and online.”
More than 270 registered and vetted information security specialists from across the U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand discovered 207 valid vulnerabilities during the contest. Participants earned more than $130,000 in bounties. 
Two participants in the program were active duty military personnel and 33 participants came from outside the U.S. Top participating hackers were under 20 years old, including a 17-year-old who submitted 30 valid reports and earned the largest bounty sum during the challenge window.
HTAF was the most expansive federal bug bounty program to date, and the first time any federal bug bounty challenge has been open to international hackers. It built upon the success of previous Department of Defense hacking events, Hack the Pentagon and Hack the Army. 
 “The ideal end-state is that bug bounties become a regular, common tool in securing all IT assets across the Department of Defense,” said Hunter Price, the Air Force Digital Service lead. “We will always have security vulnerabilities. We can approach that reality of one two ways: we can deny it, or we can be proactive, open to it and use every tool in our toolbox to remediate or mitigate them.”Hack the Air Force 



cyber awareness 



threats 



bug bounty 



vulnerabilities 



information security 



information technology 



DOD 



networks communication 



digital service
EX-10.38



 Exhibit 10.38 

AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 

AMENDMENT 2013-1 

This Amendment 2013-1 (the “Amendment”) to the American Greetings Corporation Second Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is made effective as of December 31, 2013 (the “Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS,
American Greetings Corporation (the “Company”) sponsors the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.4 of the Plan, the
Company may amend, suspend, modify, discontinue, or terminate the Plan at any time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to freeze the
Plan as of the Effective Date such that no benefits will accrue under the SERP with respect to services rendered by participants after the Effective Date. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective as of the Effective Date, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. A new Article X is hereby added to the Plan to read in its entirety as follows: 

“ARTICLE X 

FREEZING THE PLAN 
  

	 	10.1	No New Participants. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, no Executive may first become a Participant in the Plan after December 31, 2013. 


 

	 	10.2	No Further Benefit Accruals. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, effective December 31, 2013, benefit accruals under the Plan shall cease and be frozen with respect to all
Participants. Thus, without limiting the foregoing, for purposes of determining a Participant’s Accrued Benefit, Assumed Bonus Percentage, Compensation, Final Average Compensation, Plan Benefit and Service, a Participant’s earnings and
periods of employment after December 31, 2013 shall not be taken into account under the Plan. 

  

	 	10.3	Continued Vesting in Accrued Benefit. Notwithstanding the fact that the Plan is frozen as to participation and benefit accruals effective as of December 31, 2013, for periods after December 31, 2013, a
Participant shall continue to be eligible to accrue years of Service in accordance with the terms of the Plan solely for purposes of determining the Participant’s vested interest in his Accrued Benefit.” 


2. Except as modified by this Amendment 2013-1, all the terms and provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, American Greetings Corporation has caused this Amendment to be
executed on its behalf by its duly-authorized officers on this 20th day of December, 2013. 
  

			
	AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian T. McGrath

		
	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President - Human Resources
#### THOMAS v. BOST

No. 305P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 570

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 19 July 2001.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 BANK OF THE OZARKS, INC. 

STOCK OPTION PLAN 

A.       Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., an Arkansas corporation (the “Corporation”) adopted the Bank
of the Ozarks, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) in 1997 to attract and retain the best available talent, to encourage the highest level of performance by executive officers and key employees, and to provide such officers and
employees with incentives to put forth maximum efforts for the success of the Corporation’s business and to serve the best interest of the Corporation’s shareholders. 

B.       On May 19, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Corporation authorized a 100% stock dividend on the
Common Stock of the Corporation, to be effected in the form of a 2-for-1 stock split (“Stock Split”). The Corporation desires to amend the Plan to proportionately adjust the number of shares available for issuance under the Plan
after giving effect to the Stock Split. 
 D.       Section 9(b) of the Plan permits the Board of
Directors of the Corporation to amend the Plan at any time. 
 AMENDMENTS 

Effective June 23, 2014, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below: 

 

	 	1.	Section 3 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following Section 3: 


3. Shares Available Under Plan. The shares of Common Stock which may be issued under the Plan will not exceed in the aggregate
9,160,000 shares, subject to adjustment as provided in this Paragraph 3. 
 (a) Any shares of Common Stock which are subject to Stock
Options that are terminated unexercised, forfeited or surrendered or that expire for any reason will again be available for issuance under the Plan. 

(b) The shares available for issuance under the Plan also will be subject to adjustment as provided in Paragraph 6. 

 

	 	2.	Section 4 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following Section 4: 


4. Individual Limitation on Stock Options. The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock with respect to which Stock
Options may be granted to any Participant during any calendar year will not exceed 560,000 shares (adjusted to give effect to each of four 2-for-1 stock splits, effected by issuing one share of common stock for each share outstanding, on
June 17, 2002, December 10, 2003, August 16, 2011 and June 23, 2014, respectively). 

3.       In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in effect and following execution of this Amendment, the
Plan shall be restated with the above changes incorporated therein. 
 The Company has adopted this Amendment on May 19, 2014.
News United States Air Force
 Fusion warfare key to C2 futurePublished March 2, 2017
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Alyssa C. Gibson
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ORLANDO, Fla. (AFNS)  --**
                Despite adversaries’ attempts to imitate and interfere, the Air Force’s command and control capabilities are the best in the world, said the commander of Air Combat Command during the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium here March 2.To remain dominant in the future, Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the ACC commander, said the Air Force must combine its C2 capabilities with fusion systems that bring information from multiple domains into a sophisticated network that allows faster movement through the observe, orient, decide and act loop.“If you want to get combat ID, if you want to get weapons quality track, you have to get to fusion warfare,” he continued. “It’s not just data – when you talk fusion with multiple sensors across battlespace, you have to get into the mechanics of how the sensors work. You have to get into the algorithms, so that multiple pieces of data can fuse at a level that gives you combat ID. That fusion is hard ... but that’s where we’re trying to get to.”According to the general, the Air Force has come a long way in its C2 abilities, thanks mostly to predecessors like former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper who had the foresight to put the service on its current path.“When you look at C2 today, whether it’s the (air operations center) doing a dynamic strike with the (F-15E) Strike Eagles in a forward (deployed) area, or it’s a (tactical air control party) calling in danger-close (close air support) to help in a tight situation ... it’s amazing how we’ve set ourselves up and what we do every single day.”Carlisle said he believes the service will remain dominant because of the talent of its Airmen and industry partners.“We will always win, because we know we can deliver,” he said. “We lead the world in precision, stealth, our ability to deliver ordnance, and ability to command and control. My belief is as we move into the future, what’s going to keep us ahead of our adversaries is the ability to command and control into fusion warfare.”ACC 



fusion warfare 



C2 



Command and Control 



AFA
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE COMMITMENT OF Z.O.

March 4, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 197 *N.J.Super.*330)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

STEVEN PREDMORE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 831 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

                            FORM 10-QSB CERTIFICATION

         I, Leslie I. Handler, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Encompass
Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ending March 31, 2005;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Encompass Holdings,
Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

         a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to Encompass Holdings, Inc., including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.


May 30, 2006                     ENCOMPASS HOLDINGS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ LESLIE I. HANDLER
                                 --------------------------
                                 Leslie I. Handler, President
#### DIANE METZ v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
MODIFY and AFFIRM; Opinion issued November 28, 2012.

In The

Qourt of Z1ppat

ififtj itrtct of cxa at 1OaUa

No. 05-12-00284-CR

ROLONDRIA D’ANN SHARP, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-61570-Y

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges. O’Neill, and Murphy

Opinion by Justice O’Neill

Rolondria D’Ann Sharp waived a jury and pleaded not guilty to injury to an invalid. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 22,04(a) (West 201 1). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed

punishment at two years’ imprisonment, probated for two years. In a single issue. appellant contends the

judgment should be modified to show there was no plea bargain agreement. The State agrees the

judgment should be modified. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified. The

background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties. and we therefore

limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
The record shows appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge in the indictment. The judgment.

however, states terms of a plea bargain were “2 Years TDC/prohated for 2 Years” Thus, the judgment is

incorrect. We sustain appellant’s sole issue. We modify the judgment to show there were no terms of a

plea bargainSee TEx, R. APP, P. 43,2(h); Biglev v. State, 865 S,W.2d 26, 27—28 (Tex. Crim,

App. 1993); Asberrv r’. State, 813 S,W2d 526, 529—30 (Tex, App—Da1las 1991, pet. ref’d).

As modified. we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A?1CHAEL J 0 N’EILL

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEx. R. APP. P. 47

I 20284F.U05
Court of tpptat

fifth itrict of Ixa at JOat1a

JUDGMENT

ROLONDRIA D’ANN SHARP,

Appellant

No. 05-1 2-00284-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No, 7 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr,Ct,No.

F 10-61 570-Y).

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill,

Justices Bridges and Murphy participating.

follows:

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as

The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “None.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 28, 2012.

I

,/ ,,,,

I, / / / 1’ -

.

£ _1 -4 --/ £vlI( I II. .1. () NEIl .L

- ii. ISTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-1-1995
<CASH>                                       2,866,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,970,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,119,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,889,000
<PP&E>                                      28,421,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (17,300,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,837,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,319,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    12,552,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,132,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,837,000
<SALES>                                     32,053,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,053,000
<CGS>                                       30,583,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,583,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,579,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   608,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            971,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   971,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.33
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 54388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,952]


General Motors Company Formerly Known as General Motors 
Corporation, Orion Assembly Plant Including On-Site Leased Workers From 
Aerotek Automotive Lake Orion, MI; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on March 17, 2010, applicable to workers of General Motors Company, 
formerly known as General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Plant, 
Lake Orion, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register 
on April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21355).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers assembled 
the Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6.
    New information shows that workers leased from Aerotek Automotive 
were employed on-site at the Lake Orion, Michigan location of General 
Motors Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation, Orion 
Assembly Plant. The Department has determined that these workers were 
sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered 
leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Aerotek Automotive working 
on-site at the Lake Orion, Michigan location of General Motors Company, 
formerly known as General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Plant.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,952 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of General Motors Company, formerly known as General 
Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Plant, including on-site leased 
workers from Aerotek Automotive, Lake Oregon, Michigan, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 6, 
2008, through March 17, 2012, and all workers in the group 
threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the 
date of certification through two years from the date of 
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of August, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-22105 Filed 9-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1452

JOE LEWIS THOMAS; SARAH A. THOMAS , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. ENTERPRISE BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RICHARD CREECH , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 02793

- JMC )

Submitted : September 27, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018

Before KING , DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joe Lewis Thomas , Sarah A. Thomas , Appellants Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett , NESS & JETT, LLC , Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i n this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs Joe Lewis Thomas and Sarah A. Thomas appeal the district court’s order dismissing their claim seeking relief under the Home Affordable Modification Program, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5219, 5219a (2012), and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over their state

- law claims

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Enter. Bank of S.C. , No. 1:16

- cv
- 02793

- JMC (D.S.C. Mar

. 23, 2 018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED