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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR              
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         193048
<SECURITIES>                                   22705
<RECEIVABLES>                                  419067
<ALLOWANCES>                                   9275
<INVENTORY>                                    352411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1082765
<PP&E>                                         4789795
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2263228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4023809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          581420
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       521956
<OTHER-SE>                                     1002637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4023809
<SALES>                                        2233068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2233068
<CGS>                                          1962790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1962790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               388335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1496
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             67787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (156997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (53016)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (103981)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (130640)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (3.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.29)
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hugo Montoya SIGMOND, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50350.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*805Submitted May 15, 2006.*

Decided July 24, 2006.

Michelle P. Jennings, Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lori B. Schoenberg, Esq., FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hugo Montoya Sigmond appeals from the sentence imposed upon him following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Montoya Sigmond contends that the revocation of supervised release and sentence imposed thereafter must be reversed because the supervised release statute violates the Constitution. We reject this contention because neither the imposition of nor the revocation of supervised release violates the Sixth Amendment. *See United States v. Huerta-Pimental,*445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006).

Montoya Sigmond also contends that the district court erred by delegating to the probation officer the authority to determine the number of drug tests to which he must submit and which substance abuse treatment program he would have to attend. To the extent that Montoya Sigmond challenges the conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court on July 19, 2004, we conclude that the district court erred only in not determining the maximum number of non-treatment drug tests to which Montoya Sigmond must submit while on supervised release. *See United States v. Stephens,*424 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir.2005).

*806Accordingly, we vacate the condition of supervised release stating that Montoya Sigmond will be subjected to “at least two periodic drug tests” and remand to the district court to determine the maximum number of drug tests to which Montoya Sigmond must submit while on supervised release.

AFFIRMED in part and SENTENCE VACATED in part and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3041 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3041

    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
    monuments in Nevada except by express authorization of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2010

  Mr. Ensign introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
    monuments in Nevada except by express authorization of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN NEVADA.

    This proviso of the last sentence of the first section of the Act 
of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is 
amended by inserting ``or Nevada'' after ``Wyoming''.
                                 <all>
```
Document




[____________], 2022 


[_____________________] 


Re:      Award Agreement Amendment


Dear [____________],
Your commitment to and leadership of US Foods have never been more important. 
In recognition of your contributions and to help to retain you as the Company searches for a permanent Chief Executive Officer, the Company agrees that, in the event the Company terminates your employment other than for Cause prior to March 31, 2023, the vesting of your equity awards under the US Foods Holding Corp. 2019 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) that are scheduled to vest in March 2023 (to the extent then unvested) will accelerate in full immediately prior to such termination (the “Accelerated Vesting”).
You will be solely liable for all taxes, including Federal, state, local, or foreign income, employment and social security taxes, and penalties that may arise in connection with the Accelerated Vesting, and US Foods and its affiliates shall not have any obligation to pay such taxes or penalties on your behalf.
This agreement is an amendment to your award agreements under the Plan, which remain in full force and effect as amended.  The award agreements and this agreement contain the entire agreement between you and US Foods with respect to the Accelerated Vesting. This agreement may not be modified by either party except by a writing signed by both parties.
We request that you acknowledge acceptance of this agreement by signing below and returning a copy via email to Equity@usfoods.com  by June 30, 2022.  If you do not sign this agreement by such date, it shall become null and void and you will forfeit your right to receive the Accelerated Vesting. Please feel free to contact me or Mike O’Malley, if you have any questions. 
On behalf of the entire leadership team at US Foods, we look forward to your acceptance of this retention agreement.


Best regards,








J. David Works
EVP, Chief Human Resources Officer 






Accepted By:  ____________________________________    Date:    ______________________
#### HALL v. AMERICAN SOC. FOR CONTROL OF CANCER et al.

Civil Action No. 718.

District Court, M. D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Jan. 29, 1947.

George S. Buckner, of Murfreesboro, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Lee Douglas, Arthur Crownover, Jr., and E. J. Walsh, all of Nashville, Tenn, for defendant.

DAVIES, District Judge.

This cause came on further to be heard upon motion of American Cancer Society, Inc., to strike plaintiff’s request for a jury trial on all issues of fact in this cause, for the reason that this is a suit arising in equity and the issues therein are equitable issues and the plaintiff is not, of right, entitled to a trial by jury.

While the cause has been denominated a suit to construe a will, in reality, it has none of the attributes of a suit for the construction of a will. There is no patent ambiguity on the face of the will requiring construction by the Court, and there are no indefinite or inconsistent clauses contained in the will which would require the Court to construe the intention of the testator.

The sole purpose of the suit is to identify the trustee named in the will and one of the beneficiaries. This is only a latent ambiguity to be disclosed by extrinsic evidence. Horne v. Nashville Trust Company, 11 Tenn.App. 225.

The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to have the cause tried by a jury.

The defendant’s motion, which also contains a motion to strike parts of the reply filed by plaintiff, is, therefore, overruled and denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         233,359
<SECURITIES>                                 2,395,765
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               629,044
<PP&E>                                         998,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                 298,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,064,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          370,652
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,727,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,064,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               530,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,108,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,108,095)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,108,095)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (42.91)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (42.91)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about August 2, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Peter S. Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:   August 2, 2010
/s/ Peter S. KrausPeter S. KrausChief Executive OfficerAllianceBernstein Holding L.P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000824894
<NAME>                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP II-A

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                 1,059,121
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,017,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,077,094
<PP&E>                                30,667,916
<DEPRECIATION>                        27,440,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         6,037,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    202,750
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             5,613,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           6,037,240
<SALES>                                4,104,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       4,228,726
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,825,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        2,403,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    2,403,150
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           2,403,150
<EPS-BASIC>                                 4.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

RONALD AND SUSAN MEDVED, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

AUTO SHOWER II, INC., 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 158 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
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


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 18th day of May, 2007.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income Limited  Partnership  II-A and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership  II-A and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7277
JAMES LEE PRIMES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RAYMOND SMITH, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-939-BR) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lee Primes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Primes v. Smith , No. CA-95-939-BR (E.D.N.C. July 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-10.3




 Exhibit 10.3 
  





 
 August 15, 2022 
 Britton
Worthen 
 [Address] 
 Re: Amendment to
Executive Employment Agreement dated June 3, 2020, by and between Nikola Corporation and Britton Worthen (the “Employment Agreement”) 

Dear Britton: 
 I am pleased to provide you this
amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) reflecting certain changes to the terms of your employment as follows (defined terms shall have the meanings specified in the Employment Agreement unless otherwise defined herein):

 Annual Salary. Effective as of the date hereof, your annual salary will be increased from $1 to $450,000, paid bi-weekly less payroll deductions and all required withholdings. 
 Stock Awards. Under the
Employment Agreement, you are eligible for annual grants of Time-Vested Awards subject to Board approval having a value on the date of grant of not less than $3,000,000, and you received a Performance Award subject to stock price milestones and
continued employment during a Performance Period ending June 3, 2023. The following amendments supersede applicable provisions of the Employment Agreement: 
  

	 	(1)	 Commencing with the annual grants in 2023, fifty percent (50%) of such annual grant will consist of a
Time-Vested Award subject to vesting restrictions which will lapse annually over a three-year period starting on the grant date subject to your continued employment, and fifty percent (50%) of such annual grant will consist of a performance award
subject to such employment and performance based milestones as shall be determined by the Board in its discretion. 


  

	 	(2)	 Subject to Board approval, your Performance Award will be amended to (A) cancel the portion of the award
that can be earned upon the achievement of the stock price milestones of $40 and $55 (consisting of an aggregate of 1,894,000 shares) and (B) extend the Performance Period applicable to the 534,000 shares subject to the $25 stock price
milestone by twelve (12) months, from June 3, 2023 to June 3, 2024. Other than as modified pursuant to the preceding sentence, the Performance Award will continue to be governed in all respects by the terms and conditions of the Plan
and the applicable Award Agreement. 


 Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and provisions of
the Employment Agreement are and shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein. 











 I am pleased to confirm the terms of this Amendment to you on behalf of the Company. Please
sign and date this Amendment to confirm your agreement to the terms described above and return it to joe.pike@nikolamotor.com. For the purposes of this Agreement, a facsimile or electronic signature shall serve as an original. 

Sincerely, 
  

			
	NIKOLA CORPORATION
		
	BY:	 	/s/ Michael Lohscheller
	Name: Michael Lohscheller
	Its: President

  

					
	Accepted:	 		 	
			
	/s/ Britton Worthen	 		 	8/15/2022
	Britton Worthen	 		 	Date


  
 - 2 -