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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001093759
<NAME>                          Medsearch Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                           367,840
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    518,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                     362,057
<INVENTORY>                                        8,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 561,948
<PP&E>                                           150,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                    39,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,013,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            507,169
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           6,534
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,465,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,013,398
<SALES>                                        1,110,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,110,133
<CGS>                                            858,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,281,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 6,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (883,122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (833,122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (883,122)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.15)


</TABLE>
#### Klause E. HOLTZ (doing business as Omni Dimensional Network), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1513.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 21, 2003.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

PROST, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Conexant Systems, Inc. moves to dismiss Klause E. Holtz’s appeal for failure to comply with this court’s April 17, 2003 order that directed that Holtz file his brief by June 30, 2003. Holtz has not responded.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Conexant’s motion is granted and appeal 00-1513 is dismissed.
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

NASA Information Technology Governance Document 

2013-02-11 (ITIC-Ol) 

Recommendation: 

NASA should produce a clear and concise Infonnation Technology (IT) governance document, 

including documented processes, policies, and organization roles and responsibilities. The 

framework should incorporate leading IT governance methods. 

Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 

• 	 Clarifies expectations and roles of the ChiefInfonnation Officer (CIO) with buy-in 

from the Mission Directorates. 

• 	 Provides clear corporate responsibilities for the growing role of IT in mission 


development and success. 


• 	 Administration guidance is shifting: focus on oversight ofIT projects and procurement 

ofcommodity IT software, equipment, and services to be applied across the Agency. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

• 	 NASA continues to be criticized from oversight organizations in the Administration and 

Congress. 

• 	 Development of "highly specialized Mission IT" will miss opportunities to leverage 

from NASA-wide IT developments. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with the recommendation and appreciates the interest the NASA Advisory 

Council is showing in IT governance. The NASA Administrator has stated that improving IT 

governance is a top priority for the Agency. The Office ofthe Chief Infonnation Officer 

(OCIO) is currently implementing eight recommendations provided by the Office ofthe 

Inspector General (OIG) in "Audit ofNASA's Infonnation Technology Governance" 

(Assignment No. A-12-018-00). The Council recommendation aligns closely with the 

recommendations included in the OIG report. The OCIO will include this recommendation in 

its response to the OIG and will work closely with the IT Infrastructure Committee ofthe 

NASA Advisory Council to ensure it is responsive to the recommendation. 

Enclosure
##### 



Exhibit 10.37 Summary of 2005 Bonus Plan The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) may grant a discretionary bonus to each of the Companys executive officers for services
rendered by such officer during 2005 (the 2005 Bonus). In accordance with the terms of such
officers employment agreements (each of which have been filed as exhibits to the Companys
Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-111157)), target bonus amounts have been established as
a percentage of 2005 base salary. The actual bonus earned by each officer can range from zero to
200% above the target amount and will be determined based on, among other things, the Companys
overall performance, as well as the individual officers performance during 2005. The Companys
overall performance will be evaluated at the end of the year on the basis of goals and criteria
that will include continued development of the Companys product candidates in a successful and
timely manner and effective management of the Companys operations. The target bonus amount and
target percentage for each named executive officer (as defined in Regulation S-K item 402(a)(3))
who is currently serving as an executive officers of the Company is set forth in the table below. Named Executive Officer
    
    2005 Target Bonus% of Base Salary
    
    AmountJean-Pierre Sommadossi
Chairman of the Board
President and Chief Executive
Officer
    
    
    60
    %
    
    $
    285,000David A. Arkowitz
Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
    
    
    40
    %
    
    $
    119,480Guy Macdonald
Executive Vice President,
Operations
    
    
    40
    %
    
    $
    119,480Nathaniel A. Brown
Chief Medical Officer,
Executive Vice President,
Clinical Research
    
    
    40
    %
    
    $
    116,000Andrea J. Corcoran
Executive Vice President,Legal
and Administration
    
    
    35
    %
    
    $
    93,730
Exhibit 31.1
I, Thomas A. Daiber, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Centrue FinancialCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 12, 2004 /s/ Thomas A. Daiber  Thomas A. Daiber Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.5



AMENDMENT TO NOBLE CORPORATION PLC
2015 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


This Amendment (“Amendment”) to Noble Corporation plc 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is made by Noble Corporation plc, a company organized under the laws of England and Wales (the “Company”) as of March 24, 2020.
 
WHEREAS, the board of directors (the “Board”) of the Company has deemed it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to reflect certain changes to Section 5(b) thereof;
 
WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan permits the Board to amend the Plan in certain circumstances, and the subject of this Amendment is within the Board’s authority under the Plan.
 
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan as set forth below.
 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date set forth above, as follows:
 
1.          Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:
 
“(b) Limitations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Plan, the following limitations shall apply to any Awards made hereunder: 
		
	(i)
	No Employee may be granted during any calendar year Awards consisting of Options or SARs that are exercisable with respect to Shares with an aggregate Fair Market Value in excess of $10,000,000 taking into account the date of grant value of the Shares subject to, and without regard to the Exercise Price associated with, such Awards; 


		
	(ii)
	(ii) No Employee may be granted during any calendar year Stock Awards with an aggregate Fair Market Value in excess of $10,000,000 taking into account the date of grant value of the Shares subject to such Awards; and 


		
	(iii)
	(iii) No Employee may be granted during any calendar year (x) Cash Awards or (y) other Awards that may be settled solely in cash having a value determined on the Award Date in excess of $10,000,000.”




2.     All references in the Plan to the “Plan” shall mean the Plan as amended by this          Amendment. 


3.     All provisions of the Plan that are not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7696

ALEXANDER WILLIAM ELLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-97-915-AM)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 4, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander William Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander William Ellis appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). 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. Ellis v. Saunders, No. CA-97-915-AM

(E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 1997). 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
# CAPSTONE Takes Moon Shot, Successfully Tests Navigation Technology

The CAPSTONE small satellite successfully tested a navigation technology akin to Earth’s GPS for the first time in May, advancing a capability that could help future space missions more efficiently navigate at the Moon.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/capstone-imager/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareImage CreditNASASize1041x763pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jul 14, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
EXHIBIT
32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The accompanying Quarterly
 Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with
 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained
 in the accompanying report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                             

|      |             |  |                        
|----- | ----------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: | May 7, 2010 |  | /s/ Sherman L. Black   
|      |             |  | Chief Executive Officer
|      |             |  |                        
|Date: | May 7, 2010 |  | /s/ Robert M. Wolf     
|      |             |  | Chief Financial Officer
|      |             |  |                        

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P.
 Name
    
    JurisdictionAtlas Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P.
    
    DelawareAtlas Pipeline New York, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaAtlas Pipeline Ohio, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaAtlas Pipeline Pennsylvania, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaAtlas Pipeline Mid-Continent LLC
    
    DelawareElk City Oklahoma Pipeline, L.P.
    
    TexasElk City Oklahoma GP, LLC
    
    DelawareAtlas Arkansas Pipeline LLC
    
    OklahomaAtlas Pipeline Finance Corp.
    
    DelawareAPC Acquisition, LLC
    
    DelawareNOARK Pipeline System, Limited Partnership
    
    ArkansasNOARK Pipeline Finance, LLC
    
    OklahomaOzark Gas Transmission, LLC
    
    OklahomaOzark Gas Gathering, LLC
    
    OklahomaNOARK Energy Services, LLC
    
    Oklahoma
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0001182 13-AUG-2013 11:10 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  exhibit   contains  smmary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Registrant's  financial  statements  for the period  ended June 30,  1997,and is
qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial  statements.  This
exhibit  shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11 of the  Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 18 of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1994, or otherwise
subject to the liability of such Sections,  nor shall it be deemed a part of any
other  filing which  incorporates  this report by  reference,  unless such other
filing expressly incorporates this Exhibit by reference.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1997 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                             49,275 
<SECURITIES>                                            0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                      16,631 
<ALLOWANCES>                                          936 
<INVENTORY>                                        15,450 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   87,914 
<PP&E>                                             18,917 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      5,559 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    135,538 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              25,839
<BONDS>                                            22,048 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                             0 
<COMMON>                                              155 
<OTHER-SE>                                         74,513 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      135,538 
<SALES>                                            83,109 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   83,109 
<CGS>                                              51,249 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      51,249 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   22,085 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1,269 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     8,505 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        3,402 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 5,103 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                        5,103 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.36 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.36 
                                                 


</TABLE>
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 29, 2021

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Space
Policy Institute/George Washington University Dinner on November 16, 2021

On November 16, 2021, the Space Policy Institute (SPI) of George Washington
University’s (GWU), a not-for-profit organization under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Service Code, will hold a dinner at the DACOR Bacon House in Washington, DC.
from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. SPI is in control of the planning, organizing, and issuing
invitations for this event. The guest speaker at the event will be Dr. Christopher Scolese,
Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

°

Approximately 40 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity
of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, members of
the legislative branch, and representatives from academia, industry, and foreign entities.
The estimated cost of the event, including all food and beverages, is approximately $96 per
person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange information
regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements of a
“widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees —
including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign an ethics
pledge under Executive Order 13989 — who do not have a significant role in a matter
affecting the interests of SPI or GWU may accept an invitation for free attendance to the
event. In those circumstances, | find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs

any concern that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the
performance of their duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting
the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or
negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination
from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees
are reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual
situation.

BAL

Adam F. Greenstone
#### Wright *v.*The State, on the Relation of Howe.—In error.

DEBT by the state, on the relation of *A.,*against *B.*on his bond as administrator. The declaration stated that the reíator was a creditor of the estate, but it did not allege that he had recovered a judgment against the estate, nor did it show the nature or amount of his demand. *Held,*that the declaration was insufficient. *Eaton*v. *Benefield et al.*2 Blackf. 52.

Where in such suit there are several issues in fact, a verdict, in general terms, “ for the plaintiff” may be valid; but a verdict in such case as to only one of the issues, not noticing the others, is bad. *Crouch*v. *Martin,*3 Blackf. 256.—*Hanna et al.*v. *Ewing et al. Id. 34.*—Patterson v. *Salmon, Id. 131.*—Fitch v. *Dunn, Id. 142.*—Huff v. *Gilbert,*4 *id.*19. *Van Benthuysen*v. *De Witt,*4 Johns. 213.