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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-3-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JAN-3-1999
<CASH>                                         719,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  798,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,273,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,758,000
<PP&E>                                     105,092,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,842,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,202,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,881,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       159,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,618,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,202,000
<SALES>                                    142,592,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           142,950,000
<CGS>                                       43,347,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              106,271,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,994,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,951,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,734,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,734,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

CACI Technologies, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DAAB07-03-D-C214 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60610 

J. William Koegel, Jr., Esq. 

General Counsel 

Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Cara A. Wulf, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Boston, MA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 30 August 2017 

Administrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60610, Appeal of CACI Technologies, Inc., rendered 

in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Ashworth, Inc.;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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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 functions):
   June 9, 2008
 /s/ Allan H. FletcherAllan H. FletcherChief Executive Officer
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892-4872

washabac@mail.nih.gov

May 2020

Back to Top
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133757 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133757 COA: 272002 Wayne CC: 99-001336-01 HUBERT MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 14, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of QuantRx Biomedical Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
      Witoshkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002,
      that to my knowledge:





1.
      The
      Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Walter WitoshkinWalter
                WitoshkinChairman
                & CEO





Date:
      May
      15, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 10.iii.(b)**

****

****

**ADDENDUM**

The following was agreed to on March 21, 2003 as an addendum to the Employment Agreement, as amended and restated, dated October 24, 2000, between Douglas A. Pertz and IMC Global.

# **Article 1, Employment**

Section 1.  Term.  The amended Agreement is further amended and Section 1 replaced as follows:

           1.  Term.  This Agreement shall renew automatically for an additional one year term on September 15, 2003, and shall continue to renew automatically for additional one year terms thereafter unless (i) writtennotice of the Company's intent to terminate the Agreement is given at least three (3) months prior to the expiration of the then current term or (ii) written notice of the Executive's intent to terminate the Agreement is given at least three (3) months prior to theexpiration of the then current term.

**Agreed to:**

IMC Executive Committee

By:__________________________                  ___________________           Raymond F.Bentele                                Date

 

IMC Compensation Committee

By:__________________________                   ___________________           Richard L.Thomas                                   Date

 

Executive

By:__________________________                  ___________________            Douglas A.Pertz                                    Date

 

*Return to IMC GlobalInc. Form 10-Q*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Wright, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 803]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered April 12, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not specify this ground in his motion to dismiss at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Williams,*298 AD2d 535 [2002]; *People v Campbell,*209 AD2d 631 [1994]). In any event, the contention is without merit *(see People v Joseph,*74 AD3d 840 [2010]; *People v Carter,*44 AD3d 677 [2007]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]; *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The jury’s finding of “physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [9]) was supported by the evidence *(see People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445 [2007]; *People v Stearns,*72 AD3d 1214 [2010]).

Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael GALLMAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8539.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided May 27, 2009.

Michael Gallman, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Gallman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing to establish his substantial assistance to the Government. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Gallman,*No. 8:00-cr-00191-HMH-2 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2008). We also deny Gallman’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6372** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JAMES ISSAC COLE, JR., a/k/a Brother Cole , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 0:07

- cr
- 00316

- JFA

- 1 )

Submitted : May 23 , 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

James Issac Cole, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Issac Cole, Jr. , appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion

for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006).
As we have recognized, however, a district court has no
authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order
denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d
233, 235

- 36 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 39 

To express the sense of Congress on the Purple Heart. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. HAGEL) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To express the sense of Congress on the Purple Heart. 

Whereas the Purple Heart is the oldest military decoration in 

the world in present use; 

Whereas the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the 

President of the United States to members of the Armed 

Forces who are wounded in conflict with an enemy force 

or are wounded while held by an enemy force as prisoners 

of war, and posthumously to the next of kin of members 

of the Armed Forces who are killed in conflict with an 

enemy force or who die of a wound received in conflict 

with an enemy force; 

Whereas the Purple Heart was established on August 7, 

1782, during the Revolutionary War, when General 

George Washington issued an order establishing the Hon-
2 

•SCON 39 IS 

orary Badge of Distinction, otherwise known as the 

Badge of Military Merit; 

Whereas the award of the Purple Heart ceased with the end 

of the Revolutionary War, but was revived in 1932, the 

200th anniversary of George Washington’s birth, out of 

respect for his memory and military achievements; and 

Whereas National Purple Heart Recognition Day is a fitting 

tribute to George Washington and to the more than 

1,535,000 recipients of the Purple Heart, approximately 

550,000 of whom are still living: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

4 Purple Heart Recognition Day; 

5 (2) encourages all people of the United States 

6 to learn about the history of the Purple Heart and 

7 to honor its recipients; and 

8 (3) requests that the President issue a procla9 mation calling on the people of the United States to 

10 conduct appropriate ceremonies, activities, and pro11 grams to demonstrate support for people who have 

12 been awarded the Purple Heart. 

Æ
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 41 

Recognizing the sacrifices being made by the families of members of the 

Armed Forces and supporting the designation of a week as National 

Military Families Week. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2005 

Mr. HAGEL (for himself and Mr. MARTINEZ) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the sacrifices being made by the families of 

members of the Armed Forces and supporting the designation of a week as National Military Families Week. 

Whereas the people of the United States have a sincere appreciation for the sacrifices being made by the families of 

members of the Armed Forces while their loved ones are 

deployed in the service of their country; 

Whereas military families face unique challenges while their 

loved ones are deployed because of the lengthy and dangerous nature of these deployments; 

Whereas the strain on military family life is further increased 

when these deployments become more frequent; 
2 

•SCON 41 IS

Whereas military families on the home front remain resilient 

because of their comprehensive and responsive support 

system; 

Whereas the brave members of the Armed Forces who have 

defended the United States since September 11, 2001, 

continue to have incredible, unending support from their 

families; and 

Whereas the week of June 12, 2005, has been proposed to 

be designated as National Military Families Week: Now, 

therefore be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the sacrifices of military families 

4 and the support they provide for their loved ones 

5 serving as members of the Armed Forces; and 

6 (2) supports the designation of a week as Na7 tional Military Families Week. 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Justin Rojas, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 915]

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), imposed March 3, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), and thus does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Brian Folks, Appellant, v George B. Alexander, as Chair of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 779]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered April 18, 2008 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole revoking petitioner’s parole.

In 1993, petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first *1039degree and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 to 21 years. He was conditionally released to parole supervision in February 2006 and declared delinquent approximately five months later. Ultimately, he pleaded guilty to failing to report to his parole officer, and the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) recommended a 12-month time assessment. The Board of Parole thereafter revoked petitioner’s parole and imposed a 24-month hold. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s subsequent application to review the Board’s determination, prompting this appeal.*

Petitioner’s primary contention on appeal is that the Board erred in modifying the ALJ’s recommended time assessment and imposing a 24-month hold. We cannot agree. It is well settled that any recommendation made by the ALJ is advisory in nature and that the ultimate authority to reincarcerate petitioner and fix a date for his release lies with the Board *(see Matter of Santiago v Dennison,*45 AD3d 994, 995 [2007]; *Matter of Otero v New York State Bd. of Parole,*266 AD2d 771, 772 [1999], *lv denied*95 NY2d 758 [2000]). The record here reflects that petitioner was aware that the ALJ’s recommendation was not binding on the Board, i.e., there were “no guarantees” that the Board would follow that recommendation *(see People ex rel. Tyler v Travis,*269 AD2d 636, 637 [2000]). Moreover, we do not view the penalty imposed as either harsh or an abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Respondent concedes that petitioner’s administrative remedies were deemed exhausted when his administrative appeal was not decided within the relevant time period (see *Matter of McCloud v New York State Div. of Parole,*277 AD2d 627, 628 n 2 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 702 [2001]).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12276]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than June 22, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. First America Holdings Corporation, Osprey, Florida; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of MRCB Holdings, Inc., Palmetto, 
Florida, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, 
pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 21, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-12276 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### Steven R. COACH, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2008-7130.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 19, 2009.

*914Sonal N. Mehta, Weil, Gotshal & Mang-es LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, argued for claimant-appellant. With him on the brief was Matthew D. Powers.

Elizabeth A. Speck, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Ethan K. Kallett, Supervisory Attorney, and Tracey P. Warren, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before NEWMAN, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT
      10.10

     

    MAXIMUM
      CREDIT GUARANTY

     

    Obligee:
       Agricultural Bank of China (Chongwen Subbranch, Beijing) 

     

    Debtor:
       Duoyuan Digital Printing Technology Industry (China) Co., Ltd.


     

    Obligor:
       Hunan Duoyuan Printing Machinery Co. Ltd.

     

    The
      Agreement No. is (2004) 120.

     

    Obligor
      agrees to guarantee the full payment of principal, interest, expenses and other
      amounts owed by the Debtor to Obligee for a borrowing amount of no more than
      RMB54,150,000.  The term of this Guaranty is from July 30, 2004 to July 30,
      2006.  The Debtor may borrow one or more loans from Obligee during the term
      of this Guaranty without providing any additional guaranty to each
      loan.