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


<ARTICLE>                     5                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000                            
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998       
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         29,566
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  244,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                   31,852
<INVENTORY>                                    28,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,592
<PP&E>                                         218,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,679,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          430,255
<BONDS>                                        1,640,335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          557,430
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       984,313
<OTHER-SE>                                     (979,003)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,679,497
<SALES>                                        344,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               344,986
<CGS>                                          81,440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  81,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               239,264
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,732)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,732)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,732)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.25)
        


</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 83 Filed 11/20/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1009
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 83 Filed 11/20/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1010
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 83 Filed 11/20/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1011
Exhibit 10.91.3

 

Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Double asterisks denote omissions.

 

Additional Contract No. 24
 to the Contract No. KT-361/1110 as of November 11, 2010
 (hereinafter — “Contract”)

 


	
Moscow
    	
 
    	
30   January 2013
    




 

Closed Joint Stock Company EvereCT-C (PSRN 110774618793), hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”, represented by General Director Yu.G. Moskvitina, acting on the basis of the Charter, on one hand,

 

and Closed Joint Stock Company TSV Company (PSRN 5077746859757), hereinafter referred to as the “Company”, represented by General Director S.A. Vasiliev, acting on the basis of the Charter, on the other hand,

hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties”, have concluded the present Additional Contract on the following:

1.                        The Parties agreed to amend the Contract in respect of amount of rendered/provided works/services, namely: starting from the 1st of January, 2013 and to expiry date (including) of the Contract,  works/services mentioned in articles 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5 — 3.2.11 of the Contract will not be rendered in respect of [**] and revenues of the Network from such advertising will not be included in the Actual gross Incomes within above mentioned period.

2.          All other provisions of the Contract and Additional Contracts to it, as well as Applications and other documents concluded in accordance with it shall remain in full force subject to the amendments agreed herein.

3.          The present Additional Contract shall come into force starting from the date it is signed by the Parties and shall be in force from the 1st of January, 2013 and shall stay in force until the expiry date (including) of the Contract and shall be an integral part of it.

4.          The present Additional agreement is executed in two originals, each original for each Party having equal legal force.

 

	
Agency
    	
 
    	
Company
    
	
Closed Joint Stock Company
    	
 
    	
Closed Joint Stock Company
    
	
«EvereCT-C»
    	
 
    	
TSV Company
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
On behalf of the Agency
    	
 
    	
On behalf of the Company
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Yu. G. Moskvitina
    	
 
    	
/s/   S.A. Vasiliev
    
	
Yu. G. Moskvitina
    	
 
    	
S.A. Vasiliev
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50211 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee
v. JO S E L O P E Z
- RA M IR E Z , al so kn ow n a s Jose O l iva-R eseno, a l so k n ow n a s Jose R a m ir o L o p e z -M a r q u e z , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C R
- 2889- 1
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P RA D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J o s e L o p e z -R a m ir e z a p p e a ls t h e 2 4 -m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is g u i l t yp l e ac o n v i c t i o n fo ri l l e g a lr e e n t r ya f t e rr e m o v a l , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S
. C. § 132 6. H e argu es that h i s w i t h i n - gu i del i n es sen t en ce i s un reasona bl e becau se i ti s g r e a t e rt h a n ne c e s s a r yt o a c h i e v e t h e s e n t e n c i n gg o a l s s e tfo r t h i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 355 3( a)
. Lop ez asser t s t h at t h e gu i del i n es r an ge overst ates t h e ser i ou sness of h i s of fen se. H e al so argues t h at fast- t rack p ro g ra m s c reat ed u n w arran t ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D December

18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50211

2 sen ten ci n g d i sp a ri ti es b etw ee n de fen d a n ts w h o ca n av a i lthe m selve s of a fa sttr a c kp r o g r a m a n dd e fe n d a n ts , lik e h im , w h o ca n n o t. B ecau se th e senten ce im p o se db yth e d istr ict co u rt w a s w ith inth e a dv i sory gu i del i n es r a n g e o f 2 4 to 30 m on t h s of i m pri sonm en t , iti s entit l ed to a p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 435 F. 3d 551, 554 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t e d St at e sv . Campo s - Maldo nado , 53 1 F
. 3 d 3 3 7 , 33 8 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S
. C t . 328 ( 200 8)
. Lop ez ha s not show n suf f i ci en treason fo r th is c o u r t to d is tu rb th a t p r e s u m p tio n . S ee Campo s - Maldo nado , 531 F. 3d at 3 3 9 . F u r th e r , a s L o p e z co n c e d e s , h is fa s t-t r a c ka r g u m e n t is fo r e c lo s e db ycir c u it p r e c e d e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 5 2 3 F .3d5 5 4 , 5 6 3 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 6 2 3 (20 0 8 ). T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1838-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


West Virginia; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated May 15, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gregory W. 
Eaton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Edward H. Smith as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-17223 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF


DENARII RESOURCES INC.


FORM 10-Q/A FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED September 30, 2009


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Glenn Soler, am a Director of Denarii Resources Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the nine month period ended September 30, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 23, 2010
By:
/s/ Glenn SolerGlenn SolerDirector
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irby Gene DEWITT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7466.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Irby Gene Dewitt, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Irby Gene Dewitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dewitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Richard J. Harshman 
 March 4, 2013 

Allegheny Technologies Incorporated 
 1000 Six
PPG Place 
 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Attention: Elliot S. Davis, Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel 
  

	 	Re:	Amended and Restated Change in Control Severance Agreement 

 Dear Mr. Davis: 
 I am writing in reference to the Amended and Restated Change in Control
Severance Agreement (the “Change in Control Agreement”) dated as of December 31, 2008, between me and Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (the “Company”). 
 Pursuant to the Change in Control Agreement, the Company promises to pay me certain amounts in the event my employment with the Company is terminated in connection with a change in control. The Change in
Control Agreement provides for a reimbursement to me of tax obligations I may incur as golden parachute tax and income tax on that reimbursement (the “Tax Provisions”). The Tax Provisions are set forth in Section 2.7 of the Change in
Control Agreement. 
 As discussed with the Personnel and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) at its meeting on February 28,
2013, I have offered to surrender and disclaim any right I may have under the Tax Provisions and the Committee has accepted my offer. This letter is intended to confirm and formalize my surrender and disclaimer of the Tax Provisions. 

I hereby surrender and disclaim any right I may have under the Tax Provisions as outlined in Section 2.7 of the Change in Control Agreement and any
other provision of the Change in Control Agreement which refers to or otherwise provides for tax gross-up reimbursement of any amount with respect to the golden parachute provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. 

I expect the Company to draft a formal agreement amending the Change in Control Agreement to effectuate the terms of this letter. Until that time, please
indicate by your signature below that you, on behalf of the Company, accept my surrender and disclaimer of the Tax Provisions in my Change in Control Agreement. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Richard J. Harshman
	Richard J. Harshman


 Accepted and Agreed: 
 Allegheny Technologies Incorporated 
  

			
	By: 	 	/s/ Elliot S. Davis
		 	Elliot S. Davis,
		 	Senior Vice President and General Counsel
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARLES IBN MUHAMMAD,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY,

KEITH KINARD, VERIZON,

POSTMASTER GENERAL, JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

ORDER

Civil Action No. 11-CV-3441 (DMC - MF)

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:

This matter comes before the Court upon this Court’s Order dated July 19 , 2012, th

denying Plaintiff’s application for reconsideration and for a protective order and granting

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 9). This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

complaint in the same order for failure to state a claim. This Court had previously granted

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and dismissed the case (ECF No. 4). This Court, now

seeing that Plaintiff’s complaint is similar to complaints filed by Plaintiff in other actions, for the

sake of managing its docket, so that this case may be consolidated with the three similar actions,

IT IS HEREBY on this 17 day of August, 2012; th

ORDERED that the dismissal is vacated and the case re-opened. 

 s/ Dennis M. Cavanaugh 

 Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.

Orig.: Clerk 

cc: All Counsel of Record

File

Case 2:11-cv-03441-DMC-MF Document 10 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 61
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION****OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 yearly report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank Waung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.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 Securities and 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.                 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Pharma Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by China Pharma Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

|  |   |   | Date: March 4, 2010     |   |   |
|--|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|  |        |   |                         |        |        |
|  |   |   | By: /s/ Frank Waung     |   |   |
|  |   |   | Frank Waung             |   |   |
|  |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
#### Hoyle *v.*The Excelsior Steam Laundry Company.

The plaintiff being an adult engaged in the work of cleansing a machine, an operation the danger of which was obvious without instructions from the master, there was no negligence in failing to give her warning of the danger; and it appearing from the evidence that by the exercise of ordinary care she might have avoided the injury she sustained, there was no error in granting a nonsuit.

November 12, 1894.

Action for damages. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1894.

Goodwin & Westmoreland, for plaintiff.

Jackson & Leftwich, for defendant.

Simmons, Chief Justice.

The record shows that the plaintiff was over thirty years old at the time of the injury complained of, and that she had worked several months in the laundry, and about two months on the particular machine by which she was injured. This machine was an iron cylinder about the size of a flour barrel, which revolved towards the person using it, and was used for the purpose of ironing table-cloths, sheets, etc. The plaintiff was directed to wipe it off’ every Monday morning, and to do1 this while it was running. In order to perform this duty, it was necessary to wrap a cloth around her hand,, and in this particular instance she left part of the cloth hanging down from her hand, and this part of the cloth was caught between the cylinder and the piece against which the articles ironed were pressed, and her hand drawn into the machine and injured. The superintendent had not warned her of the danger attending the work in which she was engaged, and this is the main ground upon which she sought to recover.

*35It seems to us, from the description of this machine in the record, that any person of ordinary intelligence would have known that it was dangerous if proper care was not taken in working upon it. The plaintiff, being an adult and having worked upon it for two months and cleaned it several times before, must have known as well as the superintendent that if a part of the cloth wrapped around her hand was allowed to hang down, the cylinder in its rapid revolutions would be likely to take it up and draw her hand into the machine as it did on this occasion. And when the danger was as obvious to her as it was to him, what was the necessity of his telling her that the machine would mash her hand unless she was careful? Under this state of facts, the failure to warn the plaintiff' of the danger was not negligence on the part of the defendant; and the court did-not err in granting a nonsuit. See Atlas Engine Works *v.*Randall, 50 Am. Rep. 798. *Judgment affirmed.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 8
  
 Corporate name
    
    Registered officeInfineon Group:ALTIS Semiconductor S.N.C(1)
    
    Essonnes, FranceInfineon Technologies Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeInfineon Technologies Austria AG
    
    Villach, AustriaInfineon Technologies China Co. Ltd.
    
    Shanghai, People's Republic of ChinaInfineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. OHG
    
    Dresden, GermanyInfineon Technologies Finance GmbH
    
    Munich, GermanyInfineon Technologies France S.A.S
    
    Saint Denis, FranceInfineon Technologies Holding B.V.
    
    Rotterdam, The NetherlandsInfineon Technologies Holding North America Inc.
    
    Delaware, USAInfineon Technologies Investment B.V.
    
    Rotterdam, The NetherlandsInfineon Technologies Japan K.K.
    
    Tokyo, JapanInfineon Technologies North America Corp.
    
    Delaware, USAInfineon Technologies SensoNor AS
    
    Horten, NorwayInfineon Technologies (Advanced Logic) Sdn. Bhd
    
    Malacca, MalaysiaInfineon Technologies (Kulim) Sdn. Bhd
    
    Kulim, MalaysiaInfineon Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
    
    Malacca, MalaysiaQimonda Group:Qimonda AG(2)
    
    Munich, GermanyQimonda (Melaka) Sdn. Bhd
    
    Malacca, MalaysiaQimonda Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeQimonda Dresden GmbH & Co. OHG
    
    Dresden, GermanyQimonda Flash GmbH
    
    Dresden, GermanyQimonda Holding B.V.
    
    Rotterdam, The NetherlandsQimonda North America Corp.
    
    Delaware, USAQimonda Portugal S.A.
    
    Vila do Conde, PortugalQimonda Richmond, LLC
    
    Delaware, USAQimonda Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd(3)
    
    Suzhou, People's Republic of China
 
 (1)
    
    50.01% interest held by Infineon.(2)
    
    85.88% ownership interest held by Infineon.(3)
    
    45.00% interest held by Qimonda.