alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000425

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OLGA VLADIMIROVNA BORDENYUK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

DAYNA SARA KAULIA-WEBB, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

WAILUKU DIVISION

(CASE NO. 2DRC-21-0000556)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) On July 19, 2021, self-represented PlaintiffAppellant Olga Vladimirovna Bordenyuk (Bordenyuk) filed the

notice of appeal;

(2) On August 13, 2021, the district court clerk filed

the record on appeal, and the appellate clerk notified the

parties that the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were

due on or before August 23, 2021, and September 22, 2021,

respectively;

(3) Bordenyuk failed to file either document or request

an extension of time;

(4) On September 29, 2021, the appellate clerk entered

a default notice informing Bordenyuk that the time for filing the

statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the

matter would be called to the court's attention on October 11,

2021, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of

the appeal, under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000425

27-OCT-2021

10:34 AM

Dkt. 17 ODSD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Bordenyuk could request relief from

default by motion;

(5) The appellate clerk mailed the notice of entering

case on calendar and the default notice to Bordenyuk at her

address indicated on the notice of appeal and record on appeal,

but both documents were returned. The appellate clerk also

mailed the default notice to another address for Bordenyuk found

in the district court record, which was not returned; and

(6) Bordenyuk has not filed a notice of change of

address, consistent with HRAP Rule 25(f), or taken any further

action in this appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 27, 2021.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001050119
<NAME> DYNAMIC DETAILS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,711)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,312
<PP&E>                                         110,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,288)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 349,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,743
<BONDS>                                        349,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (79,714)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   349,437
<SALES>                                         75,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,285
<CGS>                                           49,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,989
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                342
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       342
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001050117
<NAME> DETAILS INC.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,575,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               44,282,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 19,181,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            73,973,000
<PP&E>                                      62,978,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             363,654,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       55,696,000
<BONDS>                                    354,998,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (82,312,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               363,654,000
<SALES>                                    130,919,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           130,919,000
<CGS>                                       92,034,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,034,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,429,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,674,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (682,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,992,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,992,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319-9 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:14244
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319-9 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:14245
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319-9 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:14246
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319-9 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:14247
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319-9 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:14248
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 319-9 Filed: 02/21/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:14249
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3842 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3842

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                              in New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2004

Ms. Slaughter (for herself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Bishop of New 
York, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Engel, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Israel, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. 
Maloney, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Meeks of New York, 
 Mr. Nadler, Mr. Owens, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Towns, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr. 
   Weiner) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                              in New York.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN NEW YORK.

    Section 1860C-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
29(b)(2)), as added by section 241(a) of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) No part in new york.--No part of the MSA is 
                in New York.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 15.1

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated May 9,2012 accompanying the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Vuance Ltd. on Form 20-F for theyear ended December 31, 2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statementsof Vuance Ltd. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121231 and 333-175785, effective December 14, 2004).

 

/s/FAHN KANNE & CO. GRANT THORNTONISRAEL

 

Tel-Aviv, Israel

May 9, 2012
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 3806

_____________________________
D ONNIE C ARTER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. John F. Simon
, Jr., Judge

.

February 28, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Donnie Carter
, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
##### 



Exhibit
10.10
 NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.
2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 (Amended and Restated February 15, 2007)
 Purposes of the Plan
 Definitions
 Administrator
 Affiliate Associate
 Applicable Laws
 Award
 Award Agreement
 Board
 Code
 Committee
 Common Stock
 Company
 Consultant
 Continuous Service




---



##### 



Corporate Transaction
      Covered Employee
 Director
 Disability
 Employee
 Exchange Act
 Fair Market Value




---



##### 



Grantee
 Incentive Stock Option
 Nonstatutory Stock Option
 Officer
 Option
 Outside Director
 Parent
 Performance  Based Compensation
 Plan
 Related Entity
 Related Entity Disposition
 Restricted Stock
 Restricted Stock Units
 Rule 16b-3
 Share
 Subsidiary
 Stock Subject to the Plan
 
         Administration of the Plan
  Administration with Respect to Directors and Officers
 Administration With Respect to Consultants and Other Employees
 Administration With Respect to Covered Employees




---



##### 



Administration Errors
 Powers of the Administrator
           Eligibility
 Terms and Conditions of Awards
 Type of Awards




---



##### 



Designation of Award
 Conditions of Award
 Acquisitions and Other Transactions
 Deferral of Award Payment
 Separate Programs
 Individual Limitations on Awards
 Individual Limit for Options




---



##### 



Individual Limit for Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units
 Deferral
 Early Exercise
 Term of Award
 Transferability of Awards
 Time of Granting Awards
 Award Exercise or Purchase Price, Consideration and Taxes
 Exercise or Purchase Price




---



##### 



Consideration
        Taxes
      Exercise of Award
 Procedure for Exercise; Rights as a Shareholder
   Exercise of Award Following Termination of Continuous Service
    Conditions Upon Issuance of Shares
   Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization
      Corporate Transactions and Related Entity Dispositions
   Effective Date and Term of Plan
 Amendment, Suspension or Termination of the Plan
        Reservation of Shares
      No Effect on Terms of Employment/Consulting Relationship
 No Effect on Retirement and Other Benefit Plans
 Plan History
 Unfunded Obligation
 Construction
##### 



Exhibit 99.2 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCEPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-6 (the Trust) I, Nancy H. Forte, a duly elected and acting officer of Citibank, N.A. (Indenture Trustee),
do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that: 1. I have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the application of
trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section
6.06 of the Indenture pursuant to which the Trusts notes were issued during the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004 (the Relevant Year); and 2. Based upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance, dated March 15, 2005,
prepared by the Ernst & Young LLP substantially in accordance with Section 4.05 of the Expense and
Indemnity Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the application of trust money collected by the
Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture was
performed in accordance with the terms of the Indenture throughout the Relevant Year. CITIBANK, N.A., as Indenture Trustee  By:
    /s/ Nancy H. Forte
Name: Nancy H. Forte
Title: Assistant Vice President Date: March 29, 2005
9852.

#### McGhee *v.*The State.

Decided November 7, 1918.

Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Millen—Judge Dekle. April 22, 1918.

*James A. Dixon,*for plaintiff in error.

Harwell, J.

The jury resolved the questions of fact against the accused in this case; ahd, only the usual general grounds of the motion for a new trial having been urged in the court below or in this court, the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion for a new trial will not be controlled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          51,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,750
<PP&E>                                         952,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,429,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          171,777
<BONDS>                                        750,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           880
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,154,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,429,306
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               832,402
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  590,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (26,011)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,859
<INCOME-TAX>                                    86,051
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            142,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,808
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75


</TABLE>
exv10w01



 





Exhibit 10.01




Dennis




On behalf of the Board of Directors of Intuit, we are delighted to offer you a
position as a Board Member of Intuit, beginning February 19, the day following
our earnings announcement. In addition to your normal board duties, your
responsibilities will include that of the newly created position of Chairman of
the Audit Committee and Intuit’s Financial Expert.



Your compensation will include the following components:



Cash Compensation




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	o Annual Retainer	 	$	30,000	 
	 
	 	o Committee Retainer	 	$	15,000	 
	 
	 	o Chairman Audit Committee	 	$	15,000	 







Equity




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	o New Hire Grant	 	 	45,000 shares	 
	 
	 	o Annual Grant	 	 	15,000 shares	 
	 
	 	o Committee Participation Grant	 	 	5,000 shares	 







	 	 	 
	

	 	You will be granted the following options under Intuit’s
Director Stock Option Plan, a shareholder approved formula
based option plan. You will be granted an option for 45,000
shares of Intuit stock on the date you are appointed a
member of the Board of Directors. You will also be granted
an option for 5,000 shares of Intuit stock on the date you
are appointed the Chair of the Audit Committee. Your 45,000
share grant will vest over four years as to 25% of the
shares on the first anniversary of the grant, then monthly
as to 2.0833% of the shares. Your 5,000 share grant will
vest over one year as to 8.333% per month.
	 
	 	 
	

	 	On each anniversary of your appointment, you will be
awarded an additional 15,000 shares for your service on the
Board and an additional 5,000 shares for your service on
the Audit Committee. The 15,000 share grant will vest over
two years as to 50% of the shares on the first anniversary
of the grant, then monthly as to 4.1666% of the shares.
The 5,000 share grant will vest as to 8.33% per month.







Please note that you will be required to file Forms 3 and 4 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission within 2 business days of you joining the Board to
report the option grant to you.



We all look forward to working with you.



Bill Campbell

Chairman

Intuit




I accept the Intuit’s offer to join its Board of Directors and serve as the
Chairman of the Audit Committee and the company’s Financial Expert.



Name (printed) Dennis D. Powell




	 	 	 
	Name (signature)

	  /s/ DENNIS D. POWELL	 
	

	
 	 
	Today’s date 2/11/04
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Monaghan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-b-monaghannasa-gov\/","title":"Elaine Slaugh\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"N6ztupBGqJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/elaine-slaugh\/\">Elaine Slaugh\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/elaine-slaugh\/embed\/#?secret=N6ztupBGqJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Elaine Slaugh\u00a0” — NASA\" data-secret=\"N6ztupBGqJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/nhq202311080003.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Kyondreh Isaiah Brooks, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00073

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F1723109 ). Memorandum Opinion del ivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the tr ial court

. We note that the appellant, Kyondreh Isaiah Brooks, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 1, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
November 2001 

Federal Involvement in Net Content Inspection 

By: Tom Coleman 

The Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NELA) was signed into law on November 

8, 1990 to amend Title 21 Section 343 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 

(FDCA). The Act requires nutritional labeling on foods and regulates health claims about 

nutrients to help consumers select a more healthful diet. Under the Act, State and local 

laws that are not “identical” to corresponding Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

requirements are preempted. According to regulations under FDA (21 CFR Part 100.1(c) 

(4)), the phrase “not identical” does not refer to the specific words in the requirement but 

means that the State or local requirement directly or indirectly imposes obligations or 

contains provisions that (1) are not imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement, or 

(2) differ from those specifically imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement or 

implementing regulation. 

Federal preemption of the net quantity of contents regulation occurred on November 8, 

1991. On that date, State and local regulations on quantity of contents (e.g., net quantity 

of content regulations, sampling plans, and test procedures) were preempted under the 

NLEA if they were not “identical” to Federal requirements. 

To help all weights and measures officials conduct appropriate compliance testing OWM 

recommends that your procedures be modified to incorporate the Category “A” Sampling 

plan provided in Table 2.1 contained in the Fourth Edition of NIST Handbook 133. If the 

average error of the lot, shipment, or delivery is negative, calculate the Sample Standard 

Deviation, multiply that factor by the appropriate Sample Correction Factor, thus, 

computing the Sample Error Limit. Disregarding the signs, if the Average Error is larger 

than the Sample Error Limit the commodity fails compliance requirements. The standard 

in conjunction with the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) requirement will be 

utilized at all locations, with the exception of United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) product which requires the use of USDA “lower limits”.