alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 14.1

NASH FINCH COMPANY  CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT  April 15, 2003

Purpose.Nash Finch Company has adopted this Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Management to deter wrongdoing and to
promote:



Applicability.This Code applies to the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller (the
"Senior Financial Management"). The obligations of this Code supplement, but do not replace, the Company's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applicable to all employees, including the Senior
Financial Management.

Requirements.All members of the Senior Financial Management shall:



1

---



Reporting Violations.Any person who has information concerning any violation of this Code by any member of the Senior
Financial Management shall promptly bring such information to the attention of the Company's General Counsel. Alternatively, any person may report any violation of this Code by calling the Company's
Compliance Hotline at 1-800-710-4848, which provides a means for making anonymous, confidential reports. Reports received by the Compliance Hotline will be
forwarded to the General Counsel. The General Counsel will inform the Chair of the Company's Audit Committee of all reports alleging violations of this Code, who will determine, in consultation with
the General Counsel, outside counsel and/or other members of the Audit Committee, the appropriate means by which any such report will be investigated.

Sanctions.Violations of this Code may subject the officer to appropriate sanctions, including censure, suspension or
termination. These sanctions shall be reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and promote accountability for adherence to this Code.

Waivers and Amendments.Waivers of or amendments to the provisions of this Code may be granted or approved only by the Board
of Directors of the Company. Any such waivers or amendments shall be promptly disclosed as required by law or Nasdaq rules.

Acknowledgements.Each member of the Senior Financial Management shall acknowledge in writing his or her obligation to fully
comply with this policy.

2

---

QuickLinks
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00840- CR Eliz abe th Al e ne Ham pt on, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. CR04-27 6, HO NORAB LE WILLIAM HENRY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Eliz abeth Ale ne Hampton pe rfe cted this appe al from he r convic tion for intox ication manslaughter. The cler

k’s fe e has not been paid and the clerk’s r ecor d has not bee n filed. SeeT e x. R. App. P. 35.3(a). The Court ha s rec eived a latter fr om Hampton’s re tained counse l stating that she desires to dismiss the appea l. The letter w as ac co mp an i ed by a copy of a motion to dismis s the appea l filed i n the t rial court. The Court has also rec eived a copy of t he trial c ourt’s orde r granting the mot ion

to d ism iss . A motion to dis miss a criminal appe al m ust be filed in the a ppellate c ourt and signed by the appe llant. Tex. R. App. P . 42.2. Although H ampton has not properly withdrawn he r notice2

of appea l, she has not paid for the c lerk’s r ecor d and plainly does not intend to do so. The appe al is dismi ssed for w ant of prose cution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 37.3(b).

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P uryear and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: May

18, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### United States Mint

# AGENCY:

United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The United States Mint is announcing a price reduction for the 2014 American Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin. The price of the American Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin will be lowered from $52.95 to $48.95.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marc Landry, Acting Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

Dated: December 15, 2014.

Richard A. Peterson, 

Deputy Director,  United States Mint. 

[FR Doc. 2014-29713 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29340]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice 
and Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Committee on Rules of 
Practice and Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a 
two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: January 8-9, 2015.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: For specific meeting location in Phoenix, Arizona, please 
contact the Rules Committee Support Office at (202) 502-1820.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan C. Rose, Rules Committee 
Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Jonathan C. Rose,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29340 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
#### Bank of Columbia *v.*W. P. D. Bush.

Corporations — Bond for Costs — Dismissal of Action.

A suit brought by a corporation in this state must be dismissed when it fails to give bond for costs before commencing the suit.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

October 7, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott :

The appellant is a corporation, and as such brought this suit, without having first executed a bond for the cost of the action. On appellee’s motion, and because said bond had not been executed, said suit was dismissed without prejudice, and this action of the court below is complained of by appellant. The law on the subject is unambiguous, and is to be found in the General Statutes, p. 265, and is as follows: “When a non-resident or any corporation shall institute an action in any court, whether suing in his own right or as representative of another, he shall before the commencement thereof, give bond with a surety resident in this state, payable to the defend*763ant, to pay all cost that may accrue in consequence thereof either to the opposite party or the officers of court.” If the plaintiff fails to give surety for cost, as required by the provisions of this chapter, his action shall be dismissed.

*Alexander & Dickerson, for appellant.*

*Barrett & Brown, for appellee.*

It will be seen that this statute leaves no room for construction. It says to the appellant that before it' brings an action in this state it must give surety for cost; and if it fails so to do, it says to the court that it shall dismiss its action; and consequently the court in which the suit was brought had no discretion. Any exercise of discretion which operated as a refusal to dismiss the suit on motion made to do so, would have been a violation of the statute. We see no escape from the provisions of the statute. It is not contended that it is unconstitutional, and its words are imperative that a suit by a corporation “shall be dismissed” if bond for cost is not executed “before” its “commencement.” We see nothing wrong in the statute except that it puts a corporation in the masculine gender, and that error, if any, is not before us for correction.

But it is contended that, under the rules of practice of the Louisville chancery court, notice of appellee’s motion should have been given' to appellant, and the same should have been in writing; but these errors, if any, were waived by appellant’s failure to object thereto in the court below.

Wherefore the judgment must be *affirmed.*

Judge Cofer did not sit in this case.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40272

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLENN EARL SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96CR110-1

- - - - - - - - - -

November 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glen Earl Scott appeals from his conviction by jury verdict

for two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine

base. Scott contends that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction. Because Scott moved for a judgment of

acquittal at the close of the Government’s evidence and in a

postverdict motion, we view all of the evidence and reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the

Government and affirm the verdict only if a rational trier of 
No. 98-40272

-2-

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt. United States v. Brown, 29 F.3d 953, 958

(5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Cheramie, 51 F.3d 538,

542 (5th Cir. 1995). The Government must prove three elements in

order to sustain a conviction for possession with intent to

distribute a controlled substance: (1) the defendant knowingly

(2) possessed the controlled substance (3) with the intent to

distribute. United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th

Cir. 1992).

Based on the substantial amount of testimonial evidence

indicating that Scott had actually dispensed a quantity of crack

cocaine to an undercover police officer on one occasion and had

possessed a pill bottle filled with approximately 25 rocks of

crack cocaine when arrested for public intoxication, a rational

jury could have found that Scott had knowingly possessed the

cocaine base with intent to distribute on both occasions.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF A.R.M., 

A JUVENILE

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00135-CV

Appeal from the

65th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC#07-00286) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a disposition order placing A.R.M. in the Challenge Boot Camp

Program. Affirmed.

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. Although counsel presents a potential appellate issue, after a

thorough analysis, she concludes there was no abuse of discretion, and no error that would

require reversal. The State has filed a response to the Anders brief, also concluding that there are

no bases for reversal of the trial court’s order.

Appointed counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record, and demonstrating why, in effect,

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant

has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant
has not exercised his right to file a pro se brief. 

Although a potential appellate issue has been raised, this Court may not conduct a review

of the merits of that issue in the Anders context. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Our review is limited to: (1) whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, and

issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error; or

(2) whether arguable grounds for appeal exist, and if so, remand the case to the trial court so that

new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we agree with appointed counsel’s

assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at

826-27. Further, we find nothing in the record that may arguably support the appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

February 28, 2011

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

-2-
* Honorable Joan A. Lenard, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 97-9006. William S. HILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Jacqueline H. BARRETT, Sheriff, Fult on County, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Sept. 21, 1998 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:97-CV-276- RCF); Richard C. Freeman, Judge. Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and LENARD * , District Judge. HATCHETT, Chief Judge: This case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order dated July 2, 1997, and cited as 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997). AFFIRMED.
#### Henry Farris’s Ex’r *v.*Emly Rowland, et al.

Attachment.

After the discharge of the first attachment and no new cause of attachment being shown, the issuance of a second attachment by the clerk is unauthorized and void.

Dismissal of Attachment.

The clerk cannot revise the ruling of the court dismissing an attachment by issuing another attachment upon the same record which the court had decided did not authorize it.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 5, 1876.

OPINION by

Judge Cofer :

The discharge of the first attachment was a decision by the court that grounds for an attachment had not been made out, ánd as no new pleading was filed, and no step was taken afterwards that could furnish any ground or authority for an attachment that did not exist when the first attachment was discharged, we are of the opinion that the second attachment was issued without authority, and that it should have been discharged and the petition dismissed on the final hearing. It will not do to say that after a decision by the court that no grounds exist for an attachment, the clerk may afterward issue another attachment upon the record which the court has decided did not authorize it. To so hold would be practically to allow an appeal to the clerk from the decision of the court.

Whether the first attachment was properly discharged is not a *820question we are now called upon to decide. If it was erroneous the law pointed out the mode of correcting it, and that mode not having been pursued within the time prescribed by law the order became final, so far as the first attachment was concerned until reserved by this court. We do not mean to decide that the court might not have ordered another attachment to issue, or that the appellees might not, by filing an amended petition setting up the fact that Bullock held a fund belonging to the appellant, have obtained an attachment against that fund. All we mean to decide is that the clerk could not virtually revise the ruling of the court by issuing an attachment upon the same record which the court had decided did not authorize it.

*Breckenridge & Shelby, for appellant.*

*Morton & Parker, for appellees.*

This view of the case renders it unnecessary to decide whether the fund in Bullock’s hands can be attached by the appellees. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition and discharge the attachment.
THIRD
AMENDMENT

TO

LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT


 


This
Third Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of November 8, 2013,
by and between SQUARE 1 BANK (the “Bank”) and GRIDSENSE INC. (the “Borrower”).


 


RECITALS


 


Borrower
and Bank are parties to that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of November 2, 2012 (as amended from time to time, the
“Agreement”). The parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


 


	1)	The
    following definition in Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated, as follows:


 


“Revolving
Maturity Date” means February 1, 2014.


 


	2)	Unless
    otherwise defined, all initially capitalized terms in this Amendment shall be as defined in the Agreement. The Agreement,
    as amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its respective terms and hereby is ratified
    and confirmed in all respects. Except as expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this Amendment
    shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or remedy of Bank under the Agreement, as in effect
    prior to the date hereof. Borrower ratifies and reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all agreements entered into in connection
    with the Agreement.
	 	 
	3)	Borrower
    represents and warrants that the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement are true and correct as of the
    date of this Amendment. 
	 	 
	4)	This
    Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together
    shall constitute one instrument.
	 	 
	5)	As
    a condition to the effectiveness of this Amendment, Bank shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to Bank,
    the following:


 


	 	a)	this
    Amendment, duly executed by Borrower;
	 	 	 
	 	b)	payment
    of a $2,500 facility fee, which may be debited from any of Borrower’s accounts;
	 	 	 
	 	c)	payment
    for all Bank Expenses incurred through the date of this Amendment, including Bank’s expenses for the documentation of
    this Amendment, which may be debited from any of Borrower’s accounts; and 
	 	 	 
	 	d)	such
    other documents and completion of such other matters, as Bank may reasonably deem necessary or appropriate.



 


Gridsense Inc. –
3rdAmendment to LSA


 



    	 



    	 



    



 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the first date above written.


 


	GRIDSENSE INC.	 	SQUARE 1 BANK
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
    	 	 	By:
    	 
	Name:
    	 	 	Name:
    	 
	Title:
    	 	 	Title:
    	 


 


[Signature
Page to Third Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement]


 


Gridsense
Inc. – 3rdAmendment to LSA
TGDC Meeting, July 2011

CDF Next Steps

John P. Wack

Computer Scientist, Software and Systems Division, ITL

&

Ian S. Piper

Director of Certification

Dominion Voting

*

TGDC Meeting, July 2011

Page *

Outline
        - Voter registration database export (John Wack)

PEW ERIC overview
        - CDF levels of interoperability and comprehensive strategy (Ian Piper)

TGDC Meeting, July 2011

Page *

VRDB Export Format
        - A consistent data format for voter registration databases would help states, manufacturers, and those who use VRDB data in analysis
        - OASIS EML requires relatively little modification to support this
        - Upfront analysis needed to ensure format is comprehensive yet flexible enough for all states/counties to use

*

TGDC Meeting, July 2011

Page *

PEW’s ERIC Project
        - Electronic Registration Information Center
        - Funded by PEW Center on the States
        - Aim is to clean and keep VRDB data accurate

Estimated 15% of records are no longer valid

Estimated 1 in 4 records contain inaccurate information
        - PEW working with cooperating states:

To cleanse VRDB records of duplicates and deadwood

To develop electronic approaches to centralizing inputs into VRDBs

TGDC Meeting, July 2011

Page *

P.1622 Use Case for VRDB Export
        - ERIC project needs a CDF schema for VRDB export
        - OASIS EML already supports many aspects of VRDB data
        - Study needed to compare state approaches to VRDBs and what states track and how, e.g.,

Differences in how addresses are recorded

Differences in how names are spelled (hyphenation, etc.)

Differences in how precincts are identified

Differences in level of detail with other geo-political and demographic information
        - IEEE P.1622 starting on VRDB export Summer 2011
        - Will require much interaction with EO’s and manufacturers

TGDC Meeting, July 2011

Discussion/Questions

Page *
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The
undersigned, a director of Nash Finch Company (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation, does hereby constitute and appoint Ron Marshall, Robert B. Dimond and Kathleen E. McDermott,
and each of them, as the undersigned's true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power to each of them to act without the others, for and in the name of the undersigned to
sign the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 52 weeks ended December 28, 2002 ("Annual Report"), and to file said Annual Report so signed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and hereby grants to the attorneys-in-fact, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things necessary to be done in the exercise of the rights and powers granted herein as fully and to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do in person; and hereby ratifies and confirms all that such attorneys-in-fact, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

In
Witness Whereof, I have signed this Power of Attorney as of April 15, 2003.

|/s/CAROLE F. BITTERCarole F. Bitter     |  | /s/LAURA STEINLaura Stein                  
|--------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|/s/JERRY L. FORDJerry L. Ford           |  | /s/JOHN E. STOKELYJohn E. Stokely          
|/s/ALLISTER P. GRAHAMAllister P. Graham |  | /s/WILLIAM R. VOSSWilliam R. Voss          
|/s/JOHN H. GRUNEWALDJohn H. Grunewald   |  | /s/WILLIAM H. WEINTRAUBWilliam H. Weintraub
|/s/ROBERT F. NASHRobert F. Nash         |  |                                            

---

QuickLinks