alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



    Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  July 2, 1998



                      AMERICAN HEALTH PROPERTIES, INC.
           (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                                      

            DELAWARE                  1-9381               95-4084878
   (State or other jurisdiction     (Commission          (IRS Employer
         of incorporation)          File Number)       Identification No.)



     6400 SOUTH FIDDLER'S GREEN CIRCLE, SUITE 1800      
                 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO                              80111
         (Address of principal executive offices)               (Zip Code)



     Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (303) 796-9793
<PAGE>   2
Item 5.  Other Events.


         On July 2, 1998, the Company announced a $35 million repayment of
Psychiatric Group mortgage loans, the declaration of a special stock dividend
and developments regarding the company's Psychiatric Group portfolio. Attached 
as Exhibit 99.1 is the Company's press release with respect to such matters.

Item 7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.


         (c) Exhibits

99.1             Press Release dated July 2, 1998.


         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


Date:  July 2, 1998                               AMERICAN HEALTH PROPERTIES,
                                                  INC.
                                                  (Registrant)


                                                  By: /s/ Michael J. McGee
                                                      Michael J. McGee
                                                      Treasurer


                                      -2-
<PAGE>   3
                                 Exhibit Index

Exhibit No.                       Description
-----------                       -----------

   99.1          Press Release date of July 2, 1998
Exhibit 10.1
                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO

                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                JOHN C. ANTENUCCI



     This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Second
Amendment") is entered into as of this 1st day of February, 2006, by and between
Plangraphics Inc., a Colorado corporation, formerly known as Integrated Spatial
Information Solutions, Inc. ("Employer") and John C. Antenucci ("Executive").


     WHEREAS, Executive and Employer are parties to an Executive Employment
Agreement dated May 1, 2002 ("the Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, paragraph 2 of the Agreement provides that the term of the
Agreement shall expire on April 30, 2005 (the "Expiration Date"); and

     WHEREAS, the FIRST AMENDMENT provides that the term of the Agreement shall
expire on January 31, 2006 (the "Expiration Date"); and

     WHEREAS, Executive and Employer desire to amend the Agreement in order to
provide a nine-month extension of the term of the Agreement and to make no other
changes to the Agreement.

     NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to change the Expiration
Date from April 30, 2005, to September 30, 2006.

     2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

     EXECUTED at Frankfort, Kentucky, on the date aforesaid.


EXECUTIVE:                                     PLANGRAPHICS, INC., A COLORADO
                                               CORPORATION

/S/ John C. Antenucci                          /S/ Gary Murray

                                               By:
-----------------------------------            ---------------------------------

John C. Antenucci                              Gary Murray, Chairman
        11/9/2005 JCA
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAUL SANC H EZ VALENCIA

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 050

- C R

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20150C05658 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until September 3 , 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Louis Elias Lopez , the Appellant ’ s attorney,

prepare the Appel lant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 3 , 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 nd day of August , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          65,762
<SECURITIES>                                   110,906
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,777
<INVENTORY>                                     55,448
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               373,969
<PP&E>                                         101,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 459,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,751
<OTHER-SE>                                     244,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   459,787
<SALES>                                        461,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               461,736
<CGS>                                          197,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               128,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                    50,631
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             94,029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    94,029
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.85
        

</TABLE>
10683.

#### Tuxworth *v.*Barber.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Complaint; from DeKalb superior court—Judge Smith. May 13, 1919.

*J. B. Stewart,*for plaintiff in error.

*McElreafh & Scott,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note by a plaintiff who is the transferee of the note, where the defendant admits a prima facie case and assumes the burden of proving his defense that the plaintiff purchased the note with notice of an infirmity therein, the trial judge does not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, upon the failure of the evidence to disclose any fact or circumstance within the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the purchase of the note which would put a prudent man on his guard as to any defense, which the defendant might have had against the payee of the note.

2. The court properly excluded parol testimony as to the contents of a suit in the municipal court of Atlanta.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Smith, J., disqualified.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                         154,220
<SECURITIES>                                   185,810
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,271
<INVENTORY>                                     77,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               597,169
<PP&E>                                         178,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 749,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,551
<BONDS>                                         65,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       446,947
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   749,840
<SALES>                                        115,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,231
<CGS>                                           54,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934




Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): MAY 5, 1998
                                                 -------------------------------

                              i2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


         Delaware                       0-28030                  75-2294945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or other jurisdiction          (Commission              (IRS Employer
     of incorporation)                File Number)           Identification No.)


909 E. Las Colinas Blvd., 16th Floor, Irving, Texas                75039
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices)                         (Zip Code)


Company's telephone number, including area code: (214) 860-6000
                                                --------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)

<PAGE>   2

ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS.

        Filed as an exhibit hereto is the registrant's press release, dated May
5, 1998, announcing that the registrant has finalized its merger with InterTrans
Logistics Solutions of Markham, Ontario.


ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.

        (c) Exhibits.

            99.1 Press release dated May 5, 1998.


                                      -2-
<PAGE>   3

                                   SIGNATURES


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                             i2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



Dated: May 5, 1998                 By:  /s/ DAVID F. CARY
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                                 David F. Cary,
                                                 Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


                                      -3-
<PAGE>   4
                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT
NUMBER                        DESCRIPTION
-------                       -----------
<S>                 <C>
 99.1               Press release dated May 5, 1998.
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27950]



[[Page 70229]]

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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Senior Executive Service-Performance Review Board

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the 
OPM Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Garcia, Employee Services--OPM 
Human Resources, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-4999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5, 
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or 
more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority 
regarding the performance of the senior executive.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Katherine Archuleta,
Director.

    The following have been designated as members of the Performance 
Review Board of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:
Ann Marie Habershaw, Chief of Staff
Angela Bailey, Chief Operating Officer
Dennis Coleman, Chief Financial Officer
Jonathan Foley, Director--Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
Joseph Kennedy, Associate Director for Human Resources Solutions
Mark Reinhold, Associate Director for Employee Services and Chief Human 
Capital Officer
Kamala Vasagam, General Counsel
Veronica Villalobos, Director--Office of Diversity and Inclusion
Andrea Bright, Deputy Associate Director for Human Resources--Executive 
Secretariat

[FR Doc. 2014-27950 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-45-P
Exhibit 31.2

                    Certification of Chief Operating Officer
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael Engelhart, Chief Operating Officer of Mediscience Technology Corp.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mediscience Technology
Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a 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 annual
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: June 13, 2005                               Name: ss Michael Engelhart
                                                        --------------------
                                                  Title: Chief Operating Officer
9894.

#### Duncan *v.*State of Georgia.

Decided July 17, 1919.

Condemnation under liquor law; from Gwinnett superior court —Judge Cobb. May 4, 1918.

*G. F. Kelley,*for plaintiff in error.

Luke, J.

1. In a proceeding under the act of 1917 (Pamph. Act, Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 16), to condemn a .vehicle for carrying intoxicating liquor, a verdict of acquittal, founded on the alleged illegal possession of the liquor by the defendant, was admissible as evidence in his behalf, and the court erred in excluding it. See *Duncan*v. *State,*149 *Ga.*195 (99 S. E. 612).

2. The grounds of the motion for a new trial not dealt with above are without merit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.*
Developer perspective

Jack Weast

Sr. Principal Engineer, Intel

VP Automated Vehicle Standards, Mobileye
Human Driving Today

The balance between safety & efficiency
How would you define “safe driving” for an AV?

Self-driving cars should be statistically better 

than a human driver

First try: A statistical argument
Miles Driven

The more miles I drive without a crash, the safer I am

Miles driven here Not the same as here
Disengagements

Similar to miles driven, 

depends on where & when

Incentive to avoid the 

tough environments likely 

to trigger disengagements

Minimize the number of times the system fails and requires a takeover

Why it’s insufficient
How would you define “safe driving” for an AV?

The AV only needs to strictly obey 

the rules of the road

Second try: A rules-based argument
Follow the Rules of the Road

STOP

Even if we strictly follow the rules,

others around us may not do the same
How would you define “safe driving” for an AV?

Avoid collisions at all costs

Third try: A catch-all
The AV Must Avoid Collisions at all Costs
How would you define “safe driving” for an AV?

Scenario Based Testing

Fourth Try: Enumerate All tests
Simulation based scenario testing

There is always one more test

Encourages developing to the test

How to compare simulators?

Simulated agents must accurately 

match the real world

Enumerate all possible scenarios and test in Simulation

Why it’s insufficient

We cannot provably simulate the Real World
What about Industry Standards?
Functional Safety Standards

Development

Implementation

Design

ISO 26262 guides electric, 

electronic, and software 

quality

Reduce chance of system 

faults, mitigate those that 

do occur

Essential, but not the full 

picture

System-level Safety 

System

Integrity
Normative Safety Standards

Process to identify classes 

of safety violations not 

covered by ISO 26262

Open to interpretation, 

which would result in 

different definitions of 

“safety”

Algorithm-level safety

Safety of the

Intended Function (SOTIF)
Safety Report Standards

Proposes to standardize the 

content in a Safety 

Assessment Report

Argumentation is based on 

your definition of “safety”

Who decides if your 

definition is correct or if 

your argument is sufficient?

UL 4600

A Checklist for Safety Reports
There does not (yet) exist an industry standard that 

defines what it means for an AV to “drive safely”
We believe there must exist a common AV safety 

performance and assessment standard, defined 

collaboratively between industry and government
Drive safely 

Intel, Mobileye, and the Mobileye logo are trademarks of Intel Corporation or 

its subsidiaries in the U.S. and/or other countries.

(C) Intel Corporation

Jack Weast

Sr. Principal Engineer, Intel

VP Automated Vehicle Standards, Mobileye

jack.weast@intel.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

ALVIN B. TRUESDALE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1862 (PLF)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss or for summary judgment

[Dkt. #60] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than September 30, 2010, defendant shall

file either a dispositive motion or a proposed schedule for resolution of the outstanding issues in

this case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ 

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: August 13, 2010 United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 15



May 12, 1999


Koger Equity, Inc.
8880 Freedom Crossing Trail
Jacksonville, Florida 32256




We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
interim financial information of Koger Equity, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in our report dated
April 30, 1999 because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on such financial information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-55179 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-54617 of Koger Equity,
Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of Koger Equity, Inc. on
Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form
S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
11 of that Act.








DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Jacksonville, Florida