alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.53

FRESH CHOICE, INC.    2002 HOME OFFICE INCENTIVE PLAN

Purpose:To reward Home Office management for accomplishments resulting in targeted year-end profit for the
Company.

Eligibility:Officers and Department Managers designated as Directors of the Company who are actively employed by Fresh Choice on
December 31, 2001. Those hired after December 31, 2001 may participate at a pro-rated amount unless other arrangements have been made. Participants must be employed by Fresh
Choice on the date final incentive pay calculations are completed; incentive pay is not earned until that date.Participants are only eligible to receive incentive pay if the
Company achieves 90% or more of Plan. See attached schedule. The 2002 targets include the expense of this program.

Plan Year:The plan begins on December 31, 2001 and ends on December 29, 2002.

Incentive Pay Available:The incentive pay available is a percentage of the participant's base salary as of December 31, 2001 at
Plan plus 20% of before tax earnings above plan. The pool is allocated among the designated participants based on a predetermined percentage amount. See attached schedule. Actual bonus paid is
interpolated according to actual results.

Distribution of Incentive Pay:Incentive pay will be paid as soon as practical after year end financials are audited and provided that the
Company met or exceeded defined levels of performance.

Plan Intent:Fresh Choice intends to maintain the plan under the terms listed above. However, Fresh Choice reserves the right to modify or
terminate the plan at any time.

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2981 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2981

                To reevaluate and redirect the stimulus.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2010

 Ms. Snowe (for herself and Mr. Thune) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                To reevaluate and redirect the stimulus.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reevaluate and Redirect the Stimulus 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. OMB CERTIFICATION.

    Not later 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (referred to in this 
Act as the ``Director'') shall provide to Congress--
            (1) a list of programs that have unobligated stimulus funds 
        provided under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 
        2009 and the amounts that are unobligated; and
            (2) a list of stimulus funds that remain unobligated that 
        the Director recommends be redirected toward more effective 
        programs to either assist displaced workers or spur job 
        creation in 2010 with a breakdown of the amounts of unobligated 
        funds that could be reprogrammed by program.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
      THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
      WORLDTEX,  INC.  FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
      QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          5,686
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                    6,568
<INVENTORY>                                     61,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                113,171
<PP&E>                                          158,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  314,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,776
<BONDS>                                         182,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        147
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    314,436
<SALES>                                         285,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                285,787
<CGS>                                           243,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   243,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                4,830
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,975)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (10,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (10,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.71)



</TABLE>
OAS-25A

(12/12)

Interagency Aviation

SAFETY ALERT

No. IA SA 16-01 October 1, 2015 Page 1 of 2

Subject: AS350 Family Tail Rotor Bellcrank

Area of Concern: Flight Safety

Distribution: All Aviation Activities 

Discussion: Two recent SAFECOM reports identified an issue with the Airbus 350 Series helicopter 

Tail Rotor Gearbox Input Bellcrank (sometimes call an input lever). This bellcrank is on all Airbus 

350 Series helicopter gearboxes that have a conventional tail rotor. 

SAFECOM 15-316 was submitted on June 22, 2015. The submitter identified the bellcrank bushing 

had slipped out of its position. The bellcrank was replaced and in less than 10 hours had failed again. 

SAFECOM 15-605 was submitted on August 14, 2015. A pilot was conducting a preflight inspection 

of his aircraft and noticed that the bushing had slipped. The bellcrank was replaced and after 3 hours 

of flight time, slipped again. The pilot of this aircraft had read SAFECOM 15-316 which made him

aware of this issue and focused greater attention to the bushing on the bellcrank.
No. IA SA 16-01 October 1, 2015 Page 2 of 2

SAFECOM 15-820 was submitted on September 18, 2015. A mechanic was conducting a preflight 

inspection of her aircraft and identified the displaced bushing. Because of the previous SAFECOM 

messages, she was aware of this issue and paid specific attention on each of her preflight inspections.

OAS maintenance inspectors have reviewed these cases and are encouraging an increased focus in 

this area during pre-flight and post-flight inspections. 

Operator Actions. Operators are encouraged to file a Service Difficulty Report (SDR) with the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This is the best way for operators to ensure that the 

manufacturer is aware of the number of part failures.

Maintenance Malfunction Information Report. The FAA and the Helicopter Association 

International (HAI) have joined forces to provide the aviation industry with the Maintenance 

Malfunction Information Report (MMIR) system. The joint MMIR program is an efficient way of 

producing both the SDR and optional warranty claim forms. View the MMIR system at 

https://www.rotor.com/Resources/MMIREventReporting.aspx

The following Federal Aviation Regulations apply for reports for the respective FAR Part:

• § 135.415 Service difficulty reports 

• § 145.63 Reports of defects or unairworthy conditions

For general aviation, see Advisory Circular 20-109A “Service Difficulty Program” for guidance.

This is an excellent example of how SAFECOM reports can alert us to important information and be 

shared so that others can take proactive action.

/s/ Keith Raley

Keith Raley 

Chief, Aviation Safety &

Program Evaluations 

/s/ Gary Sterling

Gary Sterling 

Branch Chief, Aviation Safety 

Management Systems
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2499 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2499

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry of certain 
          manufacturing equipment entered on February 9, 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry of certain 
          manufacturing equipment entered on February 9, 2002.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF AN ENTRY OF CERTAIN 
              MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2002.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) or any other provision of law, 
not later than 90 days after the receipt of the request described in 
subsection (b), any article--
            (1) that was entered on February 9, 2002, under Entry 
        Number 66901774563, and
            (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.89 (as in effect 
        on December 31, 2001) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
        United States would have applied if such article had been 
        entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on 
        December 31, 2001,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if heading 9902.84.89 (as in 
effect on December 31, 2001) applied to such entry, and U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection shall refund any excess duty paid with respect to 
such entry.
    (b) Request.--Liquidation or reliquidation may be made under 
subsection (a) with respect to the entry described in such subsection 
only if a request therefor is filed with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (c) Refund of Amounts Owed.--Any amounts owed by the United States 
pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of the entry described in 
subsection (a) (including interest from the date of entry) shall be 
refunded not later than 90 days after the date of such liquidation or 
reliquidation.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32(a)

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, J.M.
Haggar,  III,  Chief  Executive  Officer of Haggar  Corp.  (the  Company),
hereby  certify that the  accompanying  report on Form 10-K  for the  fiscal  year  ended
September  30,  2004,  and filed  with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the  Report),  fully complies with the  requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.  I  further  certify
that  the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of the  Company.

|                              |  | /s/ J. M. Haggar,
      III                                
|----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                              |  |                                                            
|                              |  | J. M. Haggar, III                                          
|Date:
      December 10, 2004 |  | Chief Executive Officer
      (principle executive officer)

77
#### Arthur COTA, Appellant v. USA SUPREME ALL COURTS and Blalock Jones, Appellees.

No. 06-5024.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 30, 2006.

*7Arthur Cota, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Before RANDOLPH, BROWN, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motions for a telephone conference and the supplements thereto, the motions for a guardian ad litem, the motion for oral argument and the supplement thereto, the motions to extend time to file a brief, the motions for injunctive relief, and the motion for evidentiary hearing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered November 28, 2005, be affirmed. The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas relief to appellant, an Arizona state prisoner. *Rumsfeld v. Padilla,*542 U.S. 426, 443, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s pending motions be denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Chairman Sequoyah Simermeyer 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

90 K Street NE, Ste 200

Washington DC 20002

NIGC.Outreach@nigc.gov

Re: Proposed Regulation Changes – Definition of Key Employee 

Dear Chairman Simermeyer:

The Tribal Gaming Commission of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria wishes to 

submit the following comments on the proposed changes to 25 C.F.R. section 502.14:

Definition of “key employee”: although we are generally supportive of the proposed 

changes to part 502.14, we are concerned about the change to part 502.14(b), which would 

render “any person with unescorted access to secured areas” a key employee. The regulations 

contain no definition of “secured areas.” At our tribe’s gaming facility, the entirety of the back 

of house area is considered secured, and access is limited to licensed employees of the gaming 

operation and of its tenant businesses, and business visitors. Access may only be gained by use 

of a badge or passing through a security check. It is not clear whether the intention of the 

proposed change is to expand the “key employee” definition to encompass every individual 

with back of house access, but at our tribe’s facility this would broaden the definition to all 

employees of the gaming operation as well as the employees of tenant food and beverage 

operations, who must pass through back of house areas to access their workplace. Such 

persons currently are required to have gaming licenses but are not subject to the fingerprinting 

requirement of section 556.4(a)(14). In other words, the term “key employee” would become 

broader than the category of all gaming operation employees. We recommend that “secured 

areas” be changed to “cage, count and surveillance areas.”

In addition, we believe that the definition of “key employee” should be broadened to 

include two more categories:

• Human Resources employee, if designated as a key employee by a gaming ordinance or 

resolution approved by the Chair; and

• Information Technology employee, if designated as a key employee by a gaming 

ordinance or resolution approved by the Chair.
2

We recommend adding these two categories in order to provide flexibility for tribes to 

determine the need for full key employee investigations on human resources and information 

technology employees with access to extremely sensitive information. In particular, some 

information technology department employees have access to highly sensitive Class II and 

Class III gaming data. 

Another concern we have is with the proposed change to § 502.14(d), which would 

remove the discretionary power of tribes to designate other persons as key employees, 

replacing it with the automatic designation of the four most highly compensated individuals in 

the gaming operation. The tribal gaming agency is in most cases the best placed entity to 

decide whether any additional persons should be designated as key employees and should 

retain this power in order to best protect the tribe’s assets.

We appreciate your attention to these concerns. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Timothy J. McLaughlin,

Gaming Commissioner
#### ABN AMRO Bank, N.V., et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v MBIA Inc. et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 2, 2011;

decided May 5, 2011

Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>





  Exhibit 27.  Financial Data Schedule

                                    ZOOM TELEPHONICS, INC.
                                          30-JUN-99

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                          USD


<S>                             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            1
<CASH>                                             4,803,526
<SECURITIES>                                       5,132,546
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,423,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                       4,754,091
<INVENTORY>                                       13,573,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  36,011,614
<PP&E>                                             4,053,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (4,453,370)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    43,642,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              5,914,077
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                          25,190,579
<OTHER-SE>                                        11,818,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      43,642,929
<SALES>                                           33,621,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  27,224,966
<CGS>                                             17,295,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     12,539,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     394,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2,215,625)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (806,632)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,409,993)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,409,993)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.19)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                      Subsidiaries of COMFORCE Corporation

The following is a list of the material subsidiaries of COMFORCE Corporation
with jurisdiction of incorporation indicated thereby.

COMFORCE Operating, Inc. (Delaware)
COMFORCE Technical Services, Inc. (Delaware)
COMFORCE Telecom, Inc. (Delaware)
SUMTEC Corporation (Delaware)
Uniforce Services, Inc. (New York)
PrO Unlimited, Inc. (New York)
Uniforce Staffing Services, Inc. (New York)
Uniforce Payrolling Services, Inc. (New York)
COMFORCE Technical NW, Inc. (New York)
COMFORCE Information Technologies, Inc. (New York)
Temporary Help Industry Servicing Company, Inc. (New York)
Brentwood Service Group, Inc. (New York)
Thisco of Canada, Inc. (New York)
Camelot Communications Group, Inc. (New Jersey)
Camelot Control Group, Inc. (New Jersey)
COMFORCE Technical Administrative Services, Inc. (New York)
Uniforce Payrolling Tri-State, Inc. (New York)
Gerri G. Inc. (New York)
Clinical Labforce of America, Inc. (New York)
Brentwood of Canada, Inc. (New York)
BXI Net, Inc. (California)
COMFORCE Coding Services, Inc. (New York)
Labforce Services of America, Inc. (New York)
COMFORCE Technical Services of Washington, Inc. (New York)
CIT Southeast, Inc. (New York)
Additional Guidance on Fully Vaccinated People 

July 30, 2021 

To reduce the spread of COVID-19 and to maintain healthy operations, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided updated information for fully vaccinated people 

given new evidence on the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant currently circulating in the United States. 

As tribes and tribally licensed gaming facilities continue to review, consider, plan, and monitor 

their gaming facilities operational status and COVID-19 prevention protocols, the NIGC 

recommends reviewing and incorporating the most recent CDC Interim Public Health 

Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People, designed to enhance individual and community 

protections and to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Tribal leaders and gaming operations can 

determine, in collaboration with tribal regulatory authorities, whether and how to implement 

these considerations, with adjustments to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the local 

community. 

Because the transmission rate of COVID-19’s Delta variant is far greater than previously 

observed rates of other variants, review of and changes to the Tribe’s current prevention 

protocols may be warranted, particularly if the Tribe’s gaming facilities resides in an area 

of substantial or high transmission. The NIGC continues to understand conditions vary widely 

by community and this guidance does not replace tribal health and safety laws, rules, and 

regulations with which the gaming operations must comply. Moreover, operators and tribal 

regulatory authorities should continue to monitor, assess and adjust current COVID-19 protocols 

and operating status due to shifting public health and safety information and risks. The NIGC 

continues to encourage collaboration with state and local health officials when assessing local 

conditions and needs. 

The CDC newest guidance for fully vaccinated people and other important guidance on 

readiness, planning and how to slow the spread of COVID-19 are listed below: 

 Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html 

 Considerations for Events and Gatherings: 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-forevents-gatherings.html 

 Considerations for Casinos and Gaming Operations: 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/businessemployers/casinos-gaming-operations.html 

 NIGC Guidance Regarding COVID-19 can be found on our webpage: 

https://www.nigc.gov/commission/nigc-guidance-regarding-covid-19.