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


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements contained in the Form 10-Q for the
six months ended June 30, 1998 for the Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000837010
<NAME>                        Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<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
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           13,136
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     249
<MORTGAGE>                                     13
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 13,979
<CASH>                                         1,058
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             24
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         1,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,046
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                3,831
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            1
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 29
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          11,084
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,046
<PREMIUMS>                                     34
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            428
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             7
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 14
<BENEFITS>                                     348
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                96
<INCOME-TAX>                                   28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            68
<DISCONTINUED>                                 37
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1





                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20

March 23, 1998



Mr. Paul Tunink
4228 N. 139th Ave.
Omaha, NE   68164

Dear Paul:

Pursuant to our conversation, the Company has agreed to provide you with a
Severance Agreement.  The terms are as follows:

General Severance Agreement

If the company terminates your employment for any reason, other than for cause,
you will receive a lump sum cash amount equal to one year's base salary.  In
addition , your medical and dental insurance coverage will remain in force for
twelve months, along with the 401(K) Retirement Plan benefit.

Change in Control

This Agreement provides for the following benefits if your employment is
terminated by the Company without cause or by you for "Good Reason" (as
described below) during the one-year period following a "Change in Control".

    (i)   a lump sum cash amount equal to one year's base salary, an amount
          not less than was in effect at the time of "Change in Control,"
          plus 505 of your target bonus for the year in which the "Change in
          Control" takes place; and

    (ii)  medical and dental insurance coverage will remain in force for
          twelve months, along with the 401(K) Retirement Plan benefit.

"Good Reason" means, generally, a material adverse change in position,
responsibilities or title, a reduction in base salary, a relocation of you by
the Company or substantially more burdensome travel requirements.
<PAGE>   2
Mr. Paul Tunink
March 23, 1998
Page Two


In addition, you will be reimbursed for all legal fees and expenses incurred
with respect to any disputes arising in connection with this Severance
Agreement.




                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Al Barber
                                           Chief Executive Officer Stuart
                                           Entertainment, Inc.

                                  ADDENDUM #1

Definitions

"Change in Control" - Change in Control occurs when MLGA Fund II, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership, Bingo Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation or
any related affiliate no longer owns directly and free and clear of all liens
at least 33% of the issued and outstanding shares of stock of the Company, or
in the event of a disposition of all or substantially all the assets of the
Company.

"Cause" - Cause for this agreement means termination as a result of (i) the
conviction of a felony charge under the laws of the United States and (ii)
willful and continual failure to substantially perform duties (other than as a
result of total or partial incapacity due to a physical or mental illness).




                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Al Barber
                                           Chief Executive Officer Stuart
                                           Entertainment, Inc.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


    In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of BrightStar Information
Technology Group, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, I Joseph A.
Wagda, CEO and Kenneth A. Czaja, CFO, of BrightStar Information Technology
Group, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1) such Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended June 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operations of BrightStar Information
        Technology Group, Inc.



Date: August 14, 2002.                        BY: /s/ Joseph A. Wagda
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Joseph A. Wagda
                                                 Chairman and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer

                                              BY: /s/ Kenneth A. Czaja
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Kenneth A. Czaja
                                                 Executive Vice President, Chief
                                                 Financial Officer and Secretary
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TIETEX INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

Appellant

v.

PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1748

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-

01248.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JAMAICA P. SZELIGA, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by NEIL C.

JONES, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Greenville, SC; JAMES ROBERTSON, J.M. Robertson, LLC, Birmingham, AL.

LYNNE A. BORCHERS, Sage Patent Group, PLLC, Raleigh, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by PETER 

DANIEL SIDDOWAY. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 10, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Cite as 2023 Ark. 124

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE CLIENT SECURITY FUND 

COMMITTEE 

Opinion Delivered September 21, 2023

PER CURIAM

The court appoints Rachel Kate Anderson, Esq., of Scott, to the Client Security Fund 

Committee for a term expiring on July 31, 2028. The court appreciates Ms. Anderson’s 

willingness to serve on this important committee.
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 23.4


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form S-1
of our report dated February 8, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of Benchmark Communications Radio Limited Partnership. We
also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts".



                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas
March 27, 1998
567 A.2d 1115

#### CITY OF JOHNSTOWN, Appellant, v. James D. VARNISH, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 3, 1989.

Decided Dec. 21, 1989.

*252Richard J. Green, Jr., Johnstown, for appellant.

W. Patrick James, Johnstown, for appellee.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and COLINS, J., and BARBIERI, Senior Judge.

OPINION

CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge.

The City of Johnstown (City) appeals a Cambria County Common Pleas Court order upholding James Varnish’s appeal and reversing Johnstown City Council’s (Council) decision denying his application for rezoning. We vacate the trial court’s order.

In July 1988, Varnish purchased a vacant two-story brick building, formerly the Hudson Street Elementary School. Varnish purchased the property for use as a woodshop in his building remodeling business, knowing that the property was situated in a family residential zone. Upon purchase, Varnish petitioned the Planning Commission (Commission) to rezone the property to M-2, designated “Industrial Service and Distribution” under the Johnstown zoning ordinance. This “petition to rezone” contained a street-boundary description of the area, a statement of Varnish’s purpose in making his request, and a list of neighboring property owners’ signatures and addresses. After physical inspection and public hearing, the Commission recommended the zoning change to Council. Council rejected the recommendation.

The common pleas court, concluding that the Council’s actions were arbitrary, capricious and in bad faith, reversed the Council’s decision and ordered it to rezone the property.

The City contends that the common pleas court erred in its concluding that refusal to accept the recommendation of the Commission was arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. We agree.

*253The court in its opinion stated that it was not clear if Varnish was notified of Council’s consideration of his application. However, it must be noted that the record indicates Council advised Varnish that his petition would be heard at Council’s September 14, 1988 meeting. Varnish elected not to appear and Council, after deliberation, denied the application for rezoning.

Moreover, when a landowner simply makes a request for a zoning amendment, the matter is strictly a legislative procedure. *Boyd v. Zoning Hearing Board of Churchill Borough,*83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 110, 476 A.2d 499 (1984). The refusal of a governing body to grant this rezoning application is a legislative act not subject to judicial review. *Pheasant Run Civic Organization v. Board of Commissioners of Penn Township,*60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 216, 430 A.2d 1231 (1981). Thus, the common pleas court was without authority to order Council to rezone the property.

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and reinstate Council’s decision denying Varnish’s rezoning application.

ORDER

The order of the Cambria County Common Pleas Court, No. 1988-2266 dated April 25, 1989, is vacated. The Johns-town City Council’s decision denying appellee’s request for rezoning is hereby reinstated.
Exhibit A

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 11-1 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:55
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 11-1 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:56
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 11-1 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:57
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 11-1 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:58
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick Bratton, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this annual report on Form 10-K of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 26, 2008



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick Bratton    
|    |  | Patrick Bratton        
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
10132.

#### Southern Express Company *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

This ease came to the Court of Appeals and a decision was rendered therein. 23 *Ga. App.*376 (98 S. E. 272). By writ of certiorari the ease was carried to the Supreme Court, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed; the Supreme Court holding as follows: “1. The act of 1917 (Acts Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 7), amending and supplementing the prohibition laws of this State, authorize a common carrier to transport and deliver to a practicing physician, who is the sole proprietor of a drug-store, pure alcohol for medicinaJ purposes, under certain conditions specified in the act, from one point within the State -to another point within the State of Georgia. 2. Under the facts of this case it was error to hold that the common carrier was guilty of a misdemeanor for transporting pure alcohol shipped by a wholesale druggist living at a point within this State to a *308practicing physician living at another point within this State, where it appeared that such physician had an office and kept drugs therein for *he purpose of compounding his own medicine, and where such alcohol was to be used for medicinal purposes only, and all the conditions of the act relative to receiving and delivering the alchohol had been complied with by the physician and common carrier. Nor was it illegal under the act of 1917 for such common carrier, under such circumstances, to have pure alcohol in its possession.” See full opinion of the Supreme Court, 149 *Ga.*489 (100 S. E. 709).

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for violation of prohibition law; from Mitchell superior court—Judge Harrell. September 2, 1918.

*Pope & Bennet, Robert G. & Philip PL. Alston,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. G. Bell, solicitor-general, P. A. Hooper,*contra.

in view of these rulings of the Supreme Court, the clerk of this court is directed to enter an order vacating the original judgment affirming the judgment of the court below in this case; and the judgment of that court is *Reversed.*

*Broyles, O. J., mid Luloe, J., concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04699

Honorable John Z. Lee

TikTok Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, April 6, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Motion to appear pro hac vice

[144] is granted; Attorney Melissa H. Nafash for Brian Behnke and Joshua Dugan added.

Mailed notice (sxw)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 148 Filed: 04/06/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3006
MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                   Exhibit 21

                     List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant.

                                    <PAGE>


                               MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                   Exhibit 21

                     List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant


The following schedule lists the subsidiaries of Maytag Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, as of December 31, 1996.

                                                    State or Country
Corporate Name                                      of Organization 

D.N. Holdings, Inc.                                 Delaware
  Dixie-Narco Inc.                                  West Virginia
Maytag Foreign Sales Corporation                    Virgin Islands
The Hoover Company                                  Delaware
  The Hoover Company (Sales)                        Delaware
Maytag International Inc.                           Delaware
  Maharashtra Investment, Inc.                      Delaware
  Hoover Mexicana S.A. de C.V.                      Mexico
Hoover Holdings Inc.                                Delaware
  Juver Industrial S.A. de C.V.                     Mexico
  Maytag International Limited                      United Kingdom
  Maytag Ltd.                                       Canada
  Maytag Worldwide N.V.                             The Netherlands Antilles
  AERA Limited                                      Hong Kong
Maytag International Investments, Inc.              Delaware
  Maytag International Investments B.V.             The Netherlands Antilles
    Hefei Rongshida Co. Ltd. (50.5%)                China

NOTE:  Ownership in subsidiaries is 100% unless otherwise indicated.

Other subsidiaries in the aggregate would not constitute a significant
subsidiary.

<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.24


 





California Natural Products


www.californianatural.com


 


	
  POST OFFICE BOX 1219

  	
  •

  	
  LATHROP,
  CALIFORNIA 95330-1219

  	
  •

  	
  (209)
  858-2525

  	
  •

  	
  FAX
  (209) 858-4076

  



 


September 16, 2005


 


 


Bill Gallagher


CEO


Sweet Success


 


 


Dear Mr. Gallagher;


 


California Natural Products is pleased to offer Sweet Success Inc. the
price of $4.35 per case for the Sweet Success
meal replacement beverage line packed in the 330ml prisma with sleeves.  The juice beverage line packed in the 330ml
prisma with sleeves price is being offered at $4.20
per case.  These prices are based on a
production volume of 300,000 cases annually with a minimum of 10,000 cases to
be run at any one time.  Any runs smaller
than 10,000 cases per flavor, per run will be subject to an additional short
run charge.  Short run charges are
determined at each run based on the actual volumes.


 


No yield guarantees will be provided at this price and customer assumes
all responsibility for yield loss from receipt of materials through release of
finished product. CNP will commit to a yield loss after 6 production runs have
been completed to establish a normal yield loss profile.


 


Storage fees of .15 cents per case, per month will be charged for all
cases not picked up with in 72 hours after the release date.  Raw materials and packaging will be subject
to a $6.00 monthly storage fee per pallet for any materials on site after 90
days from the production date.


 


CNP’s billing terms are Net 10 from the
date of invoice.


 


California Natural Products will supply pallet, glue, and pallet
stretch wrap only.  Ingredients for
product and any packaging materials not mentioned above are to be supplied by
the customer.


 


Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.  We at CNP look forward to working with you on
your upcoming project.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
  Deanne Reyes

  	
   

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  
	
  Customer Service

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  	 

	
  California Natural Products

  	
  September 30, 2005

  	 

				



 


cc: Matt Mclellan, Rick Elliott