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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.  This schedule should be read in conjunction with
footnotes as they are an integral part of the financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,258,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,616,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                   422,138
<INVENTORY>                                  2,350,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,091,691
<PP&E>                                       2,194,564
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,763,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,518,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,281,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        81,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,119
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,518,091
<SALES>                                     14,353,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,353,081
<CGS>                                       11,475,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,366,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                36,719
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (77,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (77,060)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   430
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,002
<OTHER-SE>                                    (83,270)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       430
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,601)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
oa-03312015-exhibit-10.13.5






Amendment to ATK Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreement
(Employees Remaining with Orbital ATK or Former ATK Employees)
This Amendment applies to any options (“Options”) to acquire shares of common stock of Alliant Techsystems Inc. (“ATK”), whether vested or unvested, that are outstanding immediately prior to the distribution of all of the outstanding shares of Vista Outdoor Inc. (“Vista”) to the stockholders of ATK (the “Spin-off”), pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, dated April 28, 2014, among Vista, ATK, Vista Merger Sub Inc. and Orbital Sciences Corporation, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Transaction Agreement”). In accordance with the terms of the Transaction Agreement, each applicable Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreement that you have is amended as follows:
1.  Conversion of ATK Option.  Each outstanding ATK Option will be converted immediately prior to the Spin-off into both (a) an option, adjusted as described below, to acquire shares of ATK common stock (an “Adjusted ATK Option”) and (b) an option, as described below, to acquire shares of Vista common stock (a “Vista Option”).
2.  Adjusted ATK Option.  The number of shares of ATK common stock subject to each Adjusted ATK Option shall be equal to the number of shares of ATK common stock subject to the related ATK Option immediately prior to the Spin-off.  The per share exercise price of each Adjusted ATK Option, rounded up to the nearest hundredth of a cent, shall be adjusted to reflect the allocation of the value between the Adjusted ATK Option and the Vista Option in relation to the original ATK Option.  Upon exercise of an Adjusted ATK Option in accordance with your Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreement, you will receive shares of ATK common stock.
3.  Vista Option.  The number of shares of Vista common stock subject to each Vista Option shall be two times the number of shares of ATK common stock subject to the related ATK Option immediately prior to the Spin-off.  The per share exercise price of each Vista Option, rounded up to the nearest hundredth of a cent, shall be determined by allocating the value between the Adjusted ATK Option and the Vista Option in relation to the original ATK Option.  Upon exercise of a Vista Option in accordance with your Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreement, you will receive shares of Vista common stock under the Vista Outdoor Inc. 2014 Stock Incentive Plan.
4.  For purposes of your Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreements and this Amendment, following the Spin-off, (a) references to a Change in Control shall only mean a Change in Control as defined in the Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreements, but the Change in Control vesting provisions shall apply to both your Adjusted ATK Options and your Vista Options and (b) references to ATK shall mean Orbital ATK, Inc.
5.  Except as modified by this Amendment, the other terms and conditions of the applicable Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreements remain in effect.
NIST PRIVACY 

The NIST Privacy Engineering Program’s mission is ENGINEERING supporting the development of trustworthy 

information systems by creating guidelines and 

tools to protect individuals’ privacy PROGRAM In Action 

65,000

Privacy Framework Downloads 

"The NIST Privacy Framework is an 

essential tool for building and 

maturing a privacy program." 

Harvey Jang, Vice President, Chief 

Celebrating 2 Years 

of Building Trust 

with the NIST 

Privacy Framework 

Privacy Officer, Cisco | January 2021 

Top 10 Success Stories Countries Strengthening By Downloads Public Trust in 

Arlington County, 

Virginia 

“When an organization builds a strong 

privacy program based on the NIST Privacy Available in 4 Languages Framework, and it is positive and yielding the 

results it's supposed to, it is a strong 

competitive advantage.” 

Juliet Okafor, JD, Executive Officer and Founder, 

RevolutionCyber | November 2020 PORTUGUESE SPANISH

ENGLISH INDONESIAN

Differential 

Privacy 

Helping Shape the Future of the 

Privacy Workforce 

600+ Global Members 

Privacy Workforce 

Public Working Group 

Prize 

Challenges 

Providing 50+ Resources for Privacy 

Framework Implementation 

Regulatory 

Crosswalks 

Learning Center 

Videos 

Advancing Privacy-Enhancing 

Technologies 

Quick Start 

Guide 

NIST.gov/privacyframework 

@NISTcyber 

Join Mailing List 

January 2022
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

      ( print page 75554)    
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:24 a.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Jeremiah O. Norton (Appointive), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

Dated: December 16, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-29763 Filed 12-16-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
11367.

#### Ausburn *v.*Alabama Cooperage Company.

Stephens, J..

1. Where one of the parties to a contract is bound to perform by delivering by a certain date a stipulated quantity of a commodijby.wMch is afterwards delivered in broken quantities, at the convenience of the contracting parties, a refusal by the other party to the contract, *121before the expiration of the contract, to accept any more deliveries at present, without indicating any intention to refuse further deliveries under the terms of the contract, does not amount to a renunciation or anticipatory breach of the contract.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Action on contract; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Nunnally. December 17, 1920.

Ausburn sued the Alabama Cooperage Company upon an alleged oral contract for the delivery of 100 cords of cooperage timber at $7.50 per cord, delivery to be made during "the months of January, February, and March, 1919. The plaintiff testified that after he had delivered part of the timber the defendant’s agent told him to “hold up shipping for a few days; my people wrote me not to take any more wood at present, ” and later told him “ he was not taking any more wood at all. ” According to the plaintiff’s testimony, the last conversation was more than two months before the expiration of the contract. On being recalled by the defendant the plaintiff testified: “ The last timo I saw him [the agent for the defendant], which was the last of December or first of January, he said that his people wrote him not to take any more wood at present, he did not know what they were going to do. ” The suit was filed January 15, 1919.

*M. B. Etibcinlcs,*for plaintiff.

*Benny & Wright,*for defendant.

2. The evidence of the plaintiff as to the alleged breach of the contract, being contradictory and equivocal, is as a matter of law to be taken most strongly against him; and there being no other evidence tending to establish the breach, the verdict for the defendant was properly directed. *Southern Railway Co.*v. *Hobbs,*121 *Ga.*428 (49 S. E. 294) ; *City of Thomasville*v. *Crowell,*22 *Ga. App.*383 (96 S. E. 335).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FUN CHARTERS, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0263-WS-M

 )

The Vessel SHADY LADY, )

Official No. 681969, her engines, etc., )

in rem, )

 )

Defendant. )

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

In accordance with the separate Order entered on this date, it is ordered, adjudged and 

decreed that DEFAULT JUDGMENT be, and the same hereby is, entered in favor of plaintiff, 

Fun Charters, Inc., and against defendant, The Vessel SHADY LADY, Official No. 681969, her 

engines, etc., in rem, in the total amount of $186,600.05.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00263-WS-M Document 37 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-37280, 333-58538, 333-65944, 333-96683, and 333-87054) pertaining to the 1990 Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1998 Stock Plan, 1999 Stock Plan, 2000 Stock Plan, 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan, 2000 Director Option Plan and 2001 Stock Plan, of New Focus, Inc. of our report dated January 31, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of New Focus, Inc. included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 2002. 

 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNGLLP

 

San Jose, California 

March 18, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SARAH S. HORTON )

 Plaintiff, )

 ) 

v. )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-396-KD-B

MOBILE COUNTY BOARD OF )

SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS )

 Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order issued on this date regarding Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Mobile County Board of School Commissioners 

and against Plaintiff Sarah Horton. 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00396-KD-B Document 21 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TY CRISWELL, et al., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-00447-KD-N

)

MOBILE HOUSING BOARD, )

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order issued on this date, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED that the FLSA settlement agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendant are

APPROVED, the parties’ joint amended motion (Doc. 98) is GRANTED, attorneys’ fees in the 

amount of $40,000 are awarded to counsel Hannan, and this action is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. No costs shall be taxed per the terms of the settlement.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of August 2016. 

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00447-KD-N Document 100 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 1
#### HERZOG v. CENTRAL STEEL TUBE CO.

Civ. No. 1-74.

United States District Court S. D. Iowa, Davenport Division.

April 21, 1951.

Gallagher, Farrish & Sheran, Mankato, Minn., for plaintiff.

F. J. MacLaughlin, Davenport, Iowa, for defendant.

RILEY, District Judge.

In this case, plaintiff seeks to avail himself of the benefits of Sec. 1404(a) of Title 28 U.S.Code, by moving for a transfer of this action to his district in Minnesota.

The defendant was not a resident of plaintiff’s district when suit was commenced, but was and is an Iowa corporation whose principal office is at Clinton, Iowa, in this District. Jurisdiction in this suit is founded only on diversity of citizenship. The action could have been “brought” only in this district. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(a).

Plaintiff contends that since potentially his district is one “where it (the action) might have been brought”, if defendant resided within that district, it may now be taken there by transfer and that this procedure is within the ambit of Section 1404(a). The Congress has not yet so declared.

To say that defendant could have been sued in Minnesota *if*it resided there and then, because it does not reside there but resides and is amenable to our jurisdiction here, to ask this court to apply Section 1404(a) to send it for trial into a district which lacks jurisdiction because of Section 1391 (a), is to ask this court to supply what it is believed Congress has not authorized in 1404(a).

We are persuaded by the opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, speaking through L. Hand, J., in FosterMilburn Co. v. Knight, 181 F.2d 949, 952. We accept his statement: “The revisers say that § 1404(a) ‘was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens,’ and that doctrine always ‘pre*608supposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process.’ ”

Counsel for the plaintiff have stated that they rely on the opinion of our predecessor in Otto v. Hirl, D.C., 89 F.Supp. *72,*and on McCarley v. Foster-Milburn Co., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 643. Both are carefully written opinions. Neither writer had the benefit of the views of Judge Hand later expressed in Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 949, cited above, wherein he disapproves of the McCarley opinion. We accept Judge Hand’s conclusion and view and overrule the motion.

The Clerk will enter the following order:

This matter came on for hearing before the court at Davenport, Iowa, on the motion of the plaintiff to have the action transferred from this division and District to the District of Minnesota. Argument was had by written briefs and the court being advised, finds that the motion should be overruled.

It is therefore Ordered that the motion of the plaintiff herein to transfer this action to the District of Minnesota, under Sec. 1404(a), Title 28, U.S.Code, be and the same is hereby overruled. Plaintiff excepts.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4669

_____________________________

ROBIN E. BARR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT 

OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR 

VEHICLES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Ronald W. Flury, Judge.

November 14, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for 

Appellant.

Jeffrey D. Slanker, Robert J. Sniffen, and Elmer C. Ignacio of 

Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.13

                                              SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL
                                              SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS,
                                           EACH DATED AS OF JUNE 14, 2000,
                                       BY AND AMONG CHEROKEE INTERNATIONAL LLC
                                              AND CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                Total Purchase Price
Member Name                                                                                     at $7.14/Class A Unit
and Address                                         Class A Units             Class B Units     and 5.71/Class B Unit
-----------                                         -------------             -------------     ---------------------
<S>                                                <C>                        <C>               <C>
Patel Family Trust dated July 17,                          11,653                   349,595                 2,079,071
1987
Ganpat Patel 1997 Irrevocable                                   0                   182,081                 1,039,535
Trust I dated November 3, 1997
Ganpat Patel 1997 Irrevocable                                   0                   182,081                 1,039,535
Trust II dated November 3, 1997
Ganpat Patel 1997 Irrevocable                                   0                   182,081                 1,039,535
Trust III dated November 3, 1997
Manju Patel 1997 Irrevocable Trust                              0                   182,081                 1,039,535
I dated November 3, 1997
Manju Patel 1997 Irrevocable Trust                              0                   182,081                 1,039,535
II dated November 3, 1997
Manju Patel 1997 Irrevocable Trust                              0                   182,081                 1,039,535
III dated November 3, 1997
Bikor Corporation                                           3,884                   480,694                 2,772,094
Van Holland                                                     0                    23,873                   136,295
Howard Ribaudo                                                  0                    12,139                    69,302
OCM/GFI Cherokee Investments                                8,828                 1,092,448                 6,300,000
II, Inc.
</TABLE>