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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        $  1,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,616
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $  1,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         $      0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $  1,616
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    18
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,275)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,275)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>
Not presented since all shares of common stock are held by a sole
shareholder.
</FN>


</TABLE>
How to Guide: Adding users within the 

NIGC Tribal Management Services (TMS)

Portal

1

Once you log on to the TMS portal this screen will appear. Click on “My Agency.”

Click on “Users.”

Click on “Add User.”
How to Guide: Adding users within the 

NIGC Tribal Management Services (TMS)

Portal

2

Complete the information for the new user. At this time, the Tribe will choose “2nd Factor 

Authentication Type (for CHRI and Manage Users)” as a SMS Text.

On the bottom, you will be able to issue User Roles/Access Rights for the individual. To understand 

what each role is, please click on the question mark (?) beside each role to provide additional 

information of what the access rights are for your user.

If a user will have access rights to CHRI, they must have completed Security Awareness training and 

appear on the Authorized Personnel list (APL). Any updates to an APL, shall be forwarded to the ISO 

iso@nigc.gov.

Once all information is complete and all access rights have been determined, click “add.”

On the user management page, you may change a password, edit or delete a user. Click on the user 
How to Guide: Adding users within the 

NIGC Tribal Management Services (TMS)

Portal

3

name and click which action you wish to take.
**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 Kaire Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
      best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Steve Westlund


Steve
      Westlund


Chief
      Executive Officer, President


and
      Director





May
      22,
      2006
exv10w7



 





Exhibit 10.7




Summary of Non-employee Director Meeting Fees and Compensation




We do not pay directors who are also Woodward officers additional compensation for their service as
directors. In addition to reasonable expenses for attending meetings of the Board of Directors,
non-employee directors receive the following compensation:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Monthly Retainer — Chairman of the Board
	 	$	5,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Monthly Retainer — All other non-employee Directors
	 	$	3,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Each Board meeting attended
	 	$	2,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Each Committee meeting attended — Chairman
	 	$	2,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Each Committee meeting attended — all others
	 	$	1,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Lead Director — Each Independent Director meeting
	 	$	2,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee Chairman — Additional Monthly Retainer
	 	$	750	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Telephonic Meetings — Chairman
	 	$	1,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Telephonic Meetings — all others
	 	$	500	 






In
addition, annual stock option awards with a fair market value of
approximately $60,000 on the date of grant
are granted to each director. The terms of the awards, such as vesting and length of the award,
can be found in the Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, filed as Exhibit 10.14 to our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, and are incorporated
herein by reference. Our directors receive no perquisites.
**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

        This agreement, effective as of July 1, 2003(the “Agreement”) is made by and between MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”) , and TODD E. SIEGEL, a resident of the State of Florida (the “Executive”).

**BACKGROUND**

        TheCompany desires to continue to obtain the benefit of services by the Executive, and theExecutive desires to continue to render services to the Company. 

        TheCompensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”)has determined that it is in the Company’s best interest and that of its stockholdersto recognize the substantial contribution that the Executive has made and is expected tomake in the future to the Company’s business and to continue to retain his servicesin the future. 

        Accordingly,in consideration of the mutual covenants and representations contained set forth below,the Company and the Executive agree as follows: 

**TERMS**
COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION 

1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON. OK 73501 

PHONE: (580) 595-3300 FAX: (580) 595-3394 

WWW .CQMANCHENATION.COM 

August 16,2013 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

144 1 L Street NW, Suite 9 1.00 

Washington, DC 20005 

reg.review@nigc.gov 

RE: Request for Public Comments Concerning One-Touch Bingo 

Dear Chairwoman Stevens and Commissioner Little, 

This letter is in response to the June 25,2013 Request for Public Comment concerning the 

Reinterpretation of the National Indian Gaming Commission's ('WIGC") 2008 decision to 

deny an amendment to the Metlakatla Indian Community's gaming ordinance which defined 

Class TI gaming as including one touch bingo ("Metlakatla Decision"). The Comanche 

Nation Gaming Commission ("CNGC") welcomes the opportunity to participate in this 

important: process and applauds the NJGC for adhering to the federal executive branch's 

commitment to consultation with tribes. ' 

The CNGC supports the NIGC3 proposed reinterpretation of the Metlakatla Decision that 

would consider one-touch bingo to be a Class IT game under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act (YGRA"). The proposed reinterpretation bolsters the language of IGRA defining Class 

I1 as 

(i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, 

computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith) - 

{I) which is played for prizes, including monetary prizes, with cards bearing 

numbers or other designations, 

(11) in which the holder of the card covers such numbers or designations when 

objects, similarly numbered or designated, are drawn or electronically 

determined, and . <.. 1, 

Exec. Order No. 13 175,65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9,2000) 
(111) in which the game is won by the first person covering a previously 

designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards, including 

(if played in the same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant 

bingo, and other games similar to bingo.. . . 

2 

The CNGC views one-touch bingo machines as a technological aid to the play of bingo as 

contemplated by Congress at the passage of IGRA. As the Senate Select Committee on 

Indian Affairs stated in its support of IGRA that it "intends that tribes be given the 

opportunity to take advantage of modem methods of conducting Class I1 games and the 

language regarding technology is designed to provide maximum fle~ibilit~."~ 7'he element 

of competition amongst the players and participation by the player are still inherent in onetouch-bingo, and thus should be considered a Class I1 game. Ultimately, whether played 

with paper cards or on a one-touch machine, players are still competing against one another, 

and not the house, for a prize. 

In closing, the CNGC welcomes the opportunity to submit comments to the NIGC regarding 

this very important issue. Please contact me at (580)595-3300 if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

I/ Jill Peters 

Executive Director 

25 U.S .C. 2703(7)(A)(i)(I)-(III). 

S. Rep. No. 100446 at p. A-9.
For Immediate Release Contact: Shawn Pensoneau 

 (202) 632-7003 

NIGC Announces Tribal Consultation set for Hollywood, Florida 

Washington, DC, January 4, 2011 — The National Indian Gaming Commission 

(Commission) has announced a government-to-government consultation to be held 

February 3, 2011, at the Hard Rock Hotel and Resort in Hollywood, Florida. 

“The Commission places a high priority on consultation. We are eager to engage in a 

meaningful dialogue with tribes as we begin to consider the relevance of the 

Commission’s current regulations for today’s industry and what can be done to 

improve them in order to better protect the industry,” said Chairwoman Stevens. “As 

the primary regulators for the Indian gaming industry, tribes and tribal regulators are 

uniquely positioned to provide the NIGC with relevant information and feedback. We 

look forward to the discussion.” 

A Notice of Inquiry was published in the Federal Register November 18, 2010, 

notifying the public that the Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of all 

regulations promulgated to implement the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). 

The NOI encourages input regarding which regulations need revision and what 

process should be utilized to revise them. 

This process is consistent with Executive Order 13,175, “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and reflects the Commission’s 

commitment to hold discussions prior to initiating the rulemaking process and before 

drafting proposed rules. 

All information on the regulatory review, including the Federal Register notice can be 

found by visiting our website at www.nigc.gov. 

Consultations are scheduled on February 3, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the Grand 

Ballroom at the Hard Rock Hotel and Resort in Hollywood, Florida. Consultations are 

being held utilizing a group discussion format. 

If you have questions or need additional information prior to the meetings, please 

contact Rita Homa, at (202) 632-7003. 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant to the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 

###
Exhibit 23.1






INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-51085, 33-57822, 333-15379 and 333-27551 of Arizona Public Service Company on
Form S-3 and in Registration  Statement No.  333-46161 of Arizona Public Service
Company on Form S-8 of our report dated March 4, 1998,  appearing in this Annual
Report  on Form  10-K of  Arizona  Public  Service  Company  for the year  ended
December 31, 1997.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Phoenix, Arizona

March 26, 1998
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 23, 1995

In The

(ticuri of Appeals

JTtftl| Btstrtri of (Eexas at Ballas

No. 05-91-01580-CR

KEITH LEON MIMS A/K/A ROBERT LEON BRIDGES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F90-11116-RW

OPINION PER CURIAM

Before Justices Baker, Chapman, and Devany

Keith Leon Mims a/k/a Robert Leon Bridges appeals his conviction for burglary of

a vehicle. Without the benefit of a plea bargain on punishment, appellant pleaded guilty

to the offense alleged in the indictment. The trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea,

found the evidence substantiated his guilt, and deferred an adjudication of guilt. The trial

court placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for ten years and assessed a$500

fine.

The State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging appellant violated the terms of his
probation. Appellant entered an open plea of true to the allegations in the State's motion.

The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and assessed a ten-year sentence.

Appellant's attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant supported

by a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The

t brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief

presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he

has a right to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court's judgment. We grant the motion of appellant's counsel to

withdraw as appellant's attorney.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 90

911580F.U05

-2-
fJs^'^>^^:'>;^4^*^#^WI^*«^yfe^rf^!!^^HSA#

Court of Appeals

IFtfty itstrirt of ©exas at Sallas

JUDGMENT

KEITH LEON MIMS a/k/a ROBERT Appeal from the 636rd District Court of

LEON BRIDGES, Appellant Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F90-

11116-RW).

No 05-91-01580-CR V. Opinion delivered per curiam, before

Justices Baker, Chapman, and Devany.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.

Judgment entered May 23, 1995.

Cff&a&jJAMES A. BAKER

JUSTICE

~-7
97-201.

#### Local Union 1886, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Reclamation Bd. of Review.

Franklin App. No. 96APD04-506. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. On January 27, 1997, appellant filed a notice of appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 11(2). Appellant’s notice of appeal does not contain the proof of service required by S.CtPrac.R. XIV(2)(C). Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(C) prohibits the filing of a document that does not contain a proof of service,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellant’s notice of appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

The Boeing Company 

Under Contract No. NOOOI 9-07-C-0035 et al. 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) ASBCA No. 59580 

) 

) 

Andrew E. Shipley, Esq. 

Seth H. Locke, Esq. 

Perkins Coie 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

Dated: 14 April 2016 

MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting 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. 59580, Appeal of The Boeing 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

p1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139679 

YPSILANTI FIRE MARSHALL, and 

CITY OF YPSILANTI, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 139679 

 COA: 281742 

Washtenaw CC: 04-000825-CH 

DAVID KIRCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 10.2a


Under the Company's 1999 Senior  Management  Variable  Incentive Plan, the Chief
Executive  Officer of the  Company,  with the  approval  of the Human  Resources
Committee  of  the  Board  of  Directors,   annually  designates   employees  to
participate  in  the  program,   establishes  their  participation   level,  and
establishes  certain  financial and operational goals for the Company which must
be satisfied in order for variable pay awards to be made. The impact, if any, of
each  employee's  performance  on his or her variable pay award is determined by
his or her officer.  Subject to final approval by the Human Resources  Committee
of the Board of  Directors,  the Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company  also
determines  at year-end the degree to which those goals have been  satisfied and
the amount of variable pay to be awarded to participating employees, if any.
Exhibit 32(j)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









(1)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.










|/s/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	March 9, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000806393
<NAME> ATLANTIC ENERGY, INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,791,505
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    321,313
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         268,022
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       343,044
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,723,884
<COMMON>                                       563,460
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            221,623
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 785,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           33,950
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           879,744
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              55,675
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  147,566
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     39,077
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   653
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 682,136
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,723,884
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,102,360
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            49,999
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     913,157
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     913,157
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        189,203
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              15,413
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 204,616
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        69,616
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,405
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   74,405
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        80,856
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         167,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42


</TABLE>