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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,745
<PP&E>                                          21,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,908
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,212
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,137
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,419
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
#### Gregory Walter BOWDEN, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 11, 2011.

Gregory Walter Bowden, II, pro se, Appellant.

*589Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals an order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. In one of the claims the appellant argues that trial counsel acted ineffectively because he opened the door to testimony that the appellant was allegedly on probation in Georgia “for drugs” after the trial court, again allegedly, had ruled that the jury was not to hear such testimony. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The court’s order and attachments indicate that the court did not address this claim. In response to this court’s show cause order the state has conceded that the lower court should be required to address this claim. On appeal from a summary denial of a facially sufficient motion, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2).

Because the record now before us indicates that the trial court failed to address this claim, we reverse the order as to this claim and remand for the trial court to rule on this matter and either provide record attachments that conclusively refute it, or provide the appellant an eviden-tiary hearing on this sole claim. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on all remaining claims in the motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.
Amendment One to ConAgra Foods 1999 Executive Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.5 
 AMENDMENT ONE 
 CONAGRA FOODS, INC. EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN (1999)

 ConAgra Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), granted to participants awards pursuant to the ConAgra Foods,
Inc. Executive Incentive Plan (1999). It is desirable to amend the Plan to avoid the need to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended from time to time (the “Code”). 
 The Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2009 as follows: 
  

	1.	The following sentence is added at the end of the third paragraph under “Awards”: 

 Unless the Committee specifies otherwise in the terms of an Award, payment shall be made on or before the later of (a) the fifteenth day of the third
month that begins after the month containing the end of the fiscal year for which performance is certified, or (b) the fifteenth day of the third month that begins after the end of the Participant’s tax year in which the end of the fiscal
year for which performance is certified occurs. 
  

	2.	A new heading and paragraph is added at end as follows: 

 Code Section 409A 
 Unless the Committee expressly determines otherwise, outstanding Awards are intended to be exempt from Code
Section 409A as short-term deferrals and, accordingly, the terms of any outstanding Awards shall be construed to preserve such exemption. To the extent the Committee determines that Code Section 409A applies to a particular Award granted
under the Plan, then the terms of the Award shall be construed and administered to permit the Award to comply with Code Section 409A. In the event anyone is subject to income inclusion, additional interest or taxes, or any other adverse
consequences under Code Section 409A (“Non-compliance”), then neither the Company, the Committee, the Board nor its or their employees, designees, agents or contractors shall be liable to any Participant or other persons in connection
with any Non-compliance, except to the extent the Non-compliance was the direct result of any Company action or failure to act that was under taken in bad faith. 
  

 109 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed on the date set forth below. 
  

			
	CONAGRA FOODS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles Salter

	Title:	 	Vice President, Human Resources
		
	Date:	 	September 25, 2008

  

 110
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00133-CV

JACOB ANTHONY WEBB, Appellant

V.

CITY OF FORT WORTH, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

of Tarrant County (348-316897-20)

January 13, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant, Jacob Anthony Webb shall pay all costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
Exhibit 10.1


 


Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


 


The following table sets out fees to be paid to
non-employee directors of our Company for their services as Board members
during Fiscal 2008:


 




	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Amount

  	
   

  
	
  Kristine F.
  Hughes (Chairperson)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,962

  	
   

  
	
  Pauline Hughes
  Francis

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  54,801

  	
   

  
	
  Robert K. Bowen

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  38,625

  	
   

  
	
  Larry A. Deppe

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  42,655

  	
   

  






 


Non-employee directors also receive health and life
insurance coverage.  Board members have
the option to receive life insurance coverage in the amount of $500,000.  We do not pay any fees for attendance at
Committee meetings.  Board members who
are also employees of our Company do not receive any directors’ fees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            1,208,488
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       354,805
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         454,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,393,616
<PP&E>                              281,145
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,491,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,108,153
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         13,712,572
<OTHER-SE>                      (11,329,340)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,491,385
<SALES>                           1,154,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,154,640
<CGS>                               190,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       190,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,438,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (22,049)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (452,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (452,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (452,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.07)
        


</TABLE>
No. 87-578. No. 87-602.

#### Bank of Nova Scotia *v.*United States; and Kilpatrick et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 484 U. S. 1003.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument denied.
#### Inez Jean SEALS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.C. PENNY LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-6183.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2001.

Before KENNEDY, ALAN E. NORRIS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs, Inez Jean Seals and Terry Hurd, appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant, J.C. Penny Life Insurance Co., in this breach of contract action.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.

Because the reasoning which supports judgment for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning employed by that court in its memorandum and order granting summary judgment entered on June 28,1999, and its memorandum and order denying plaintiffs’ request to alter or amend the judgment entered on July 26 and July 18 of 1999, respectively.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     TIME FOR THE ETHICS COMMITTEE TO THROW OUT RIDICULOUS CHARGES

  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman who spoke 
just before me brought up, because of an opportunity to respond to what 
the Ethics Committee is not willing to do. The fact of the matter is 
the Speaker did submit a contract for its review. The only role that 
the Ethics Committee has in this is to determine whether the contract 
is too generous. In fact, any Member can write a book in this House 
without having approval, but if the contract is too generous, such as 
Speaker Wright's, where he got 55 percent royalties, it becomes a gift.
  The same contract that the Speaker submitted before two times and was 
approved in 3 weeks was submitted this time. It is not being approved 
by the Ethics Committee because the Democrats refuse to approve the 
very same contract that Al Gore got approved, that the gentleman from 
Michigan, David Bonior, got approved.
  As a matter of fact, one of the ethics charges is that he used an 800 
number on the floor of the House. So did 11 others. Do we discharge 
that complaint, or do we file complaints against the 11 others? One of 
the charges is that a cable channel carried his course. Every one of 
the Members plays on the cable channels for free. Do we level charges 
against each of them? It is time for the Ethics Committee to throw out 
these ridiculous, frivolous charges.

                          ____________________
```
[ARTICLE] 5

[LEGEND]
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES F-3 AND F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR END DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
[/LEGEND]

<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1998
[CASH]                                       1,617,582
[SECURITIES]                                 3,284,495
[RECEIVABLES]                                  176,197
[ALLOWANCES]                                  (33,194)
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                             5,081,033
[PP&E]                                       1,384,650
[DEPRECIATION]                               (210,982)
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               6,263,779
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          438,072
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                     8,458,495
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 6,263,779
[SALES]                                      1,246,011
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                             1,246,011
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                2,843,684
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               236,301
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                51,574
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              96,998
[INCOME-PRETAX]                            (1,833,974)
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                        (1,833,974)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                               (1,833,974)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                    (.68)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                    (.68)
</TABLE>
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 12322 and # 12323]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1937-DR), dated 09/15/2010. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         08/17/2010 through 08/21/2010
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         09/15/2010. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/15/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/15/2011.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/15/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Clay, Cocke, Hardin, Jackson, Macon, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, Smith, Wayne. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12322B and for economic injury is 12323B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-23804 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Amos WORKS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0584.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 27, 2011.

Amos Works, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(A).

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Order entered December 12, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01217-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C., ET AL., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-06457

ORDER

Before the Court is the Department of Family and Protective Services’ December 10, 

2019 first motion for extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER 

the brief due on or before December 31, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
#### D. Wayne ELMORE, et al. v. Rodney H. JACKS, et al.

No. 2011-CC-1213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Chair Solutions, LLC; Jacks Family, LC; Jacks, Rodney H. et al.; The Glide Store, LC; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2010-2185; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-113.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1617 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1617

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, as the ``Harriett F. 
                      Woods Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. HARRIETT F. WOODS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harriett 
F. Woods Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### J. B. Abernathy & Co. *v.*J. W. Hewlett.

(No. 3334.)

Appeal from Fannin County.

Opinion by

Walker, P. J.

§ 805. *Contract of employment; breach of, by employer; measure of damage in such case; case stated.*Appellants employed appellee to buy cotton for them during the cotton season of 1883 and 1884, and agreed to pay him for his services $700. He commenced his services September 1, and continued the same until October 23, 1883, when appellants discharged him. During his employment he received from appellants $104.30, payment for his services. After his discharge, and before the close of said cotton season, he earned in other employment $205, He was discharged by appellants upon the pretended ground that he had sent them a false telegram in regard to some of their cotton, which resulted in damage to them. After the expiration of said cotton season appellee brought this suit to recover on said contract the $700 therein stipulated for, less the $104.30 he had re*709ceivecl, and less $205 which he had earned after his discharge. Appellants pleaded the false telegram as a good cause for discharging him, and also pleaded in reconvention for the damages alleged to have been sustained by them by reason of said false telegram. The cause was tried by the judge without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for $390. YO and costs. *Held:*The contract was for plaintiff’s services during the cotton-buying season; and being discharged without just cause, he was entitled to the benefit of his contract, and to recover the amount stipulated, provided he was unable otherwise, by his services, to make that amount. Any amount which he made, or could have made by reasonable diligence after his discharge and before the expiration of the period for which he had been engaged, would be deducted from the amount stipulated to be paid him. This suit was brought and 'maintained upon this theory, and the judgment is in accordance with it, and is correct. [2 Wait’s Act. & Def. 456; 2 Sutherland on Dam. 4Y3.]

May 4, 1885.

§ 806. *Evidence; telegraphic message; rule as to proof of.*Appellants proposed to read in evidence the telegraphic message which they claimed to have received from appellee. Appellee denied that he had sent such message, and objected to the introduction of it, and his objection was sustained. *Held:*This was not error. The message offered was secondary evidence. The original message as written by the sender was the best evidence, and its non-production was not accounted for. [Scott & Jernigan, Law of Tel. § 841; 1 Whart. on Ev. § 76; Gray on Com. by Tel. § 128.] There are cases where the message as delivered constitutes the primary evidence, but this case is not within that class.

Affirmed.