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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIO-LOK INTERNATIONAL INC. FOR THE 3 (THREE) MONTH
PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          60,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  630,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                   115,256
<INVENTORY>                                    966,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,569,312
<PP&E>                                       1,177,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                 764,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,256,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          840,812
<BONDS>                                        443,980
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,554
<OTHER-SE>                                     910,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,256,114
<SALES>                                        664,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               664,701
<CGS>                                          200,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,623
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,169
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,169
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Ingo K. Kozak the Vice President Finance & Administration and CFO, certify that:
 
 1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004, of Bio-Lok International Inc.; 2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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, nor misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
   3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
   4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for the establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and
 
  c)
presented in this quarterly 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 functions):
  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 officer and I have indicated in this quarterly 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 regards to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  ****Date: September 21, 2004

/s/  Ingo K. KozakVP-Finance and CFO
 16
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SIDNEY HEDGEMAN, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

vs. ) 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sidney Hedgeman’s Renewed Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law or Motion for New Trial (Doc. 541) pursuant to Rules 50 and 59 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1 The Court has previously (and extensively) addressed, on the 

record, each of the grounds which are re-asserted by Plaintiff Hedgeman in his motion. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’ Sidney Hedgeman’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as 

a Matter of Law or Motion for New Trial (Doc. 541) is DENIED for reasons previously stated on 

the record. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of November 2011.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 Rule 50 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New 

Trial...No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment--or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, 

no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged--the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of 

law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the 

court may: (1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of

judgment as a matter of law....(e) Denying the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Reversal on Appeal. If the 

court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it 

to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court 

reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted, 

or direct the entry of judgment. 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 555 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ZHANTEVEZ TRA ’ JA JACKSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2081

[ April 18, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562022CF001609A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appell ant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, C ONNER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit32.1**

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 SH 121 Bypass,Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

November9, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I,David N. Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources,Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30,2007 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/* David N. Clark                   | * * |
|----------------------------------------|----------|
| David N. Clark                         |     |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |     |
| November 9, 2007                       |     |

 

 

 

 

----
Shared Data and 

Community Evaluations

Ian Soboroff, NIST
• Information Retrieval – the science of search engines.

• In the 1960s, Cyril Cleverdon built what may have been the first 

dataset for measuring search: “Cranfield”

• 1400 abstracts from aerospace engineering journal articles.

• 200 queries taken from random documents.

• Goal: figure out the best way to index the articles for search. 

(several styles of fixed vocabularies vs. using the words in the 

abstract)

• This dataset was a sensation, because now researchers could use a 

common benchmark.

A brief history of datasets in IR
• From the 60s through the 80s, a number of other datasets were 

built by different organizations and shared with the research 

community.

• Each one had its own quirks, and its own bugs.

• And, to a one, they were all quite small, on the order of 10k 

documents maximum.

• The cost of obtaining documents, labeling them, and processing 

them made it prohibitive to grow datasets much larger than this.

• Part of this is 1970s computers, part is labor costs, and part is 

each group reinventing the process of building the dataset.

History, cont.
• In 1991, DARPA asked NIST to build a dataset with around a 

million documents.

• NIST proposed an open-participation workshop series:

• NIST would collect and label the data.

• Participant contributions would help create the dataset by 

identifying which parts of the data to label.

• The resulting community could explore the quality of the 

dataset.

• In the next year, those lessons would inform the next dataset.

Birth of TREC
• NIST was able to absorb a cost that was beyond individual 

research teams, and to make the benefit available to everyone.

• Many eyes made bugs shallow.

• Shared datasets and a cycle for improving them.

• The community became involved in the process of creating the 

datasets, which meant that they were more strongly informed by 

the needs of the community.

• Together, NIST and the research community were able to 

standardize methods for building datasets, the experimental 

methods for using them, and how results would be reported.

What problems did TREC solve?
Query

Health Misinformation

Interactive, Session

Legal

Spanish, Chinese, Xlingual

Dynamic Domain

Contextual Suggestion

QA, Entity, Live QA, CAsT

CENTRE

Chemical IR

Novelty, Temporal Summ., CAR

Blog, Microblog, RTS

Enterprise

VLC, Web, Tasks

Fair Ranking

Routing

Crowdsourcing

News

OCR, Speech, Video, Podcast

NLP

Spam

Ad Hoc, Robust, Core, Deep

HiPrec, HARD, Fdbk, Total R

Incident Streams

Filtering, KBA

Federated,Terabyte,Million Q,Open

Genomics, Medical, Clinical, PM

Answers, 

Language

Human−

not documents

Retrieval in a

loop

Corporate

Streaming

in−the−

web search

domain

Static

Beyond text

documents

focus

text

text

repositories

Personal

Efficiency and

19921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
EXHIBIT 23(b)


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
                             PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.
Miami, Florida

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No.  333-37576  and  333-37582) of our report dated
September  1, 2004  except  for Note 11, as to which the date is  September  27,
2004,  relating to the consolidated  financial  statements of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.
appearing  in the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2005.


                                             BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Miami, Florida
September 23, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13
                            EXCERPTS FROM MINUTES OF
                          BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF
                              NASH FINCH COMPANY ON
                                FEBRUARY 13, 1996

     WHEREAS, the Arbitrary Pension Plan No. 1 Supplement (the "Unfunded Plan")
     to the Nash Finch Company Profit Sharing Plan, as restated by resolution
     adopted by this Board of Directors on November 11, 1996, and amended by
     resolution adopted by this Board of Directors on April 25, 1995, provides
     for the payment of benefits to certain eligible retirees; and

     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of this Board of Directors (the
     "Compensation Committee") has concluded that the underlying purposes for
     which the Unfunded Plan was established have basically been or are being
     satisfied, and has recommended that this Board of Directors take certain
     actions regarding eligibility for participation in the Unfunded Plan and
     the determination of annual additional payments thereunder;

     RESOLVED, that the following rules be and hereby are adopted, effective
     immediately, concerning interpretation and administration of the Unfunded
     Plan:

     1.   Concerning Paragraph 1 of the Unfunded Plan, as amended, eligibility
          for participation shall be limited to (a) those persons who have
          retired and are receiving, or are eligible to receive, benefits under
          the Unfunded Plan, and (b) any person who, if still employed, has
          previously been determined to be eligible to participate upon
          retirement based upon the position held by such person on January 2,
          1966.

     2.   Concerning the additional annual payment provided for in
          Paragraphs 3(c) and 5 of the Unfunded Plan, the amount of such payment
          for 1996 and future years shall not be increased, as compared to the
          amount paid for the prior year, by a factor greater than the
          percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the
          appropriate period.

     RESOLVED FURTHER, that this Board of Directors hereby delegates to the
     chief executive officer of the Company the authority to exercise its right
     to declare additional payments under the Unfunded Plan, as provided in
     Paragraph 6 thereof, in accordance with the foregoing policy concerning
     such payments.
11433.

#### SHAW *v.*THE STATE.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor by the accused was sufficiently shown by the evidence. The name of the liquid is immaterial.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Nashville — Judge Smith. March 22, 1920.

*R. A. Hendricks,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. H. Gary, solicitor,*contra.

Luke, J.

The defendant was charged with having and possessing intoxicating liquors in violation of the law. The witness testified that the defendant possessed one barrel of‘“buck,” which is made from corn, syrup, and water, and that “buck” was intoxicating. It makes no difference by what name an intoxicant may be known, tlie question is whether the liquid is an intoxicant. *393The defendant’s evidence to the effect that the liquid was just for hog feed was not believed by the jury. The charge of the court was full and fair, and the conviction of the defendant was not without evidence to support it. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARATON ADAMS, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

vs. ) 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter is before the Court concerning the April 14, 2011 evidentiary hearing on the 

Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the reports and purported testimony of Edwin L. Bradley, Ph.D. 

(Doc. 345) and Plaintiffs’ Response (Doc. 354). 

Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the parties are 

instructed to be prepared to present to the Court, at this April 14, 2011 evidentiary hearing, any 

witnesses and evidence they deem necessary regarding the motion. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 7th day of April 2011.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 359 Filed 04/07/11 Page 1 of 1
Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement - Raphael Licht



 Exhibit 10.28 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, Taberna Realty Finance Trust (the “Company”) and Raphael Licht entered into that certain Employment
Agreement dated as of April 28, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Raphel Licht desire to amend the Employment Agreement; 
  
 WHEREAS, this Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement has been authorized by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Company.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 Section 5.1(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “(a) For purposes of this Agreement, “Cause”
shall mean the Executive’s: 
  

	 	(i)	commission of, and indictment for or formal admission to a felony, or any crime of moral turpitude, dishonesty, breach of trust or unethical business conduct, or any crime involving
the Company; 

  

	 	(ii)	engagement in fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement; 

  

	 	(iii)	continued failure to materially adhere to the directions of the Board, to adhere to the Company’s written policies and practices; or 

  

	 	(iv)	material breach of any of the provisions of Section 6. 

  
 provided that the Company shall not be permitted to terminate the Executive for Cause except on written notice given to the Executive at any time not more
than 30 days following the occurrence of any of the events described in clause (ii) through (iv) above (or, if later, the Company’s knowledge thereof). No termination for Cause under clause (i) through (iv) shall be
effective unless the Board makes a determination that Cause exists after notice to the Executive, and the Executive has been provided with an opportunity (with counsel of his choice) to contest the determination at a meeting of the Board.”

  
 [signature page to follow] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Amendment No. 1 to the
Employment Agreement as of this 8th day of July, 2005. 
  
  

			
	TABERNA REALTY FINANCE TRUST
	
	 /S/    JACK SALMON

	

	 By:
	 	 Jack Salmon

	 Title:
	 	 EVP & CFO



  
  

			
	RAPHAEL LICHT
	
	 /S/    RAPHAEL LICHT
**Exhibit(10)(c)(5)(a)**

 

**AMENDMENTTO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT**

 

 

THIS AMENDMENT  (this“Amendment”), effective as of October 23, 2003, by and between ALLTELCorporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), and Jeffery R. Gardner(“Executive”), amends that certain Agreement, dated as of January 28, 1999, byand between the Corporation and Executive (the “Agreement”).

 

In considerationof the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and other good andvaluable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1.  Section 1(C) of the Agreement is herebyamended by deleting subsection (iv) in its entirety and changing subsection(iii) to read as follows:

 

(iii) The consummation of(A) a merger or consolidation of the Corporation, statutory share exchange, orother similar transaction with another corporation, partnership, or otherentity or enterprise in which either the Corporation is not the surviving or continuingcorporation or shares of common stock of the Corporation are to be convertedinto or exchanged for cash, securities other than common stock of theCorporation, or other property, (B) a sale or disposition of all orsubstantially all of the assets of the Corporation, or (C) the dissolution ofthe Corporation.

 

2.  As amendedhereby, the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed thisAmendment as of the date first above written.

 

 
|   | **ALLTEL CORPORATION**                |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | By:                                   | /s/ Scott T. Ford |   |
|   | Scott T. Ford                         |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | **EXECUTIVE**:                        |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   |   /s/ Jeffery  R. Gardner        |   |
|   | Jeffery R. Gardner                    |

 

----