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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,480,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,107,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,220,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,043,728
<PP&E>                                   1,065,826,524
<DEPRECIATION>                             173,616,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,011,205,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      121,618,178
<BONDS>                                    380,251,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,537,607
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,879,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,011,205,479
<SALES>                                    166,884,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           533,688,113
<CGS>                                       28,855,519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              414,059,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            64,346,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          41,764,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,996,777
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,179,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    2,968,637
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,848,535
<EPS-BASIC>                                    27.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    25.28


</TABLE>
EX-10.14







IMAX CORPORATION




EXHIBIT 10.14




AMENDED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          This agreement amends the amended employment agreement (the “Agreement”) between Richard L.
Gelfond (the “Executive”) and IMAX Corporation (the “Company”) dated July 1, 1998, as amended, on
the same terms and conditions except as set out below:





	1.	 	Employment. Effective April 1, 2009, the Executive shall assume the role of the Company’s
sole Chief Executive Officer through the remainder of the Term.
	 
	2.	 	Term. The term of the Agreement is extended until December 31, 2010 (the “Term”).
	 
	3.	 	Cash Compensation. The Executive shall continue to be paid a base salary at the rate of
$500,000 per year for 2009. Effective January 1, 2010, the Executive shall be paid a base
salary at the rate of $600,000 per year. Executive’s bonus shall continue to be up to two
times salary. Such bonus shall be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and shall be
based upon the success of the Company in achieving the goals and objectives set by the Board
after consultation with the Executive. If the Executive’s employment is terminated without
Cause prior to the end of the Term, the Executive shall be entitled to no less than a pro-rata
portion of his median bonus target 

(i.e. one times salary). For purposes of clarity, if
Executive’s employment is terminated for any reason during the Term and Executive becomes
eligible to receive retirement benefits as provided under that July 2000 Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan, as amended, Executive shall no longer be entitled to receive any
cash compensation hereunder.
	 
	4.	 	Incentive Compensation. The Executive shall be granted as soon as practicable, in accordance
with the terms of the IMAX Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), stock options to purchase 500,000
common shares of the Company (the “Options”) at an exercise price per Common Share equal to
the Fair Market Value, as defined in the Plan. The Options shall have a 10-year term and vest
as follows:





	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Number of Options	 	Vesting Date
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	100,000	 	April 1, 2009
	 
	 	100,000	 	October 1, 2009
	 
	 	100,000	 	January 1, 2010
	 
	 	100,000	 	May 1, 2010
	 
	 	100,000	 	September 1, 2010






 









 







The vesting of the Options shall be accelerated upon a “change of control” as defined in the
Agreement, and shall be governed, to the extent applicable, by the provisions in the Agreement
regarding change of control.




	5.	 	The entering into this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or waive any obligations
under any other agreement between the Executive and the Company.


DATED as of December 11, 2008.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	  /s/ Richard L. Gelfond	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Richard L. Gelfond	 	 
	 
	 
 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	IMAX CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Per:
	 	  /s/ Garth M. Girvan
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Garth M. Girvan	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Director
Exhibit 32.1

                      OFFICERS' SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

     The undersigned  officer of CabelTel  International  Corporation,  a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that (i) the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2007  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
the  information  contained in the Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended  December 31, 2007 fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the
financial  condition and results of  operations  of the Company,  at and for the
periods indicated.

Dated: March 31, 2008

..

                                  /s/ Gene S. Bertcher
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Gene S. Bertcher, Principal Executive
                                  Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer
ACCEPTED

04-14-00750-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/23/2015 5:00:38 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 01/23/2015 5:00:38 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Order issued November 15, 2012 

In The 

Court of Appta 

IEift1 Markt of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00925-CR 

BILLY LUFTHANSA BARNES, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-22227-Y 

ORDER 

The Court DENIES court reporter Sharon Hazlewood's second request for an extension 

of time to file the reporter's record. 

We ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been 

deprived of the reporter's record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other 

reason. 
LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE 

o The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the 

appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute 

this appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect. 

o If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs for the reporter's record. If appellant is entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. 

Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such 

measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may 

include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not 

indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. 

o The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court 

reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter's 

explanation for the delay in filing the reporter's record; and (3) the earliest date by 

which the reporter's record can be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS from the date of this order. 

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51165 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CESAR OMAR CASTRO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-500-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar Omar Castro-Sanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez , 268 F.3d 272, 273-74 (5th Cir. 2001), which held that the district court’s failure to verify that the defendant and his counsel had read and discussed the presentence report did not require an automatic reversal. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 209 Agreed to House (ATH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 209

   Electing a Member to a certain standing committee of the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2003

 Mr. Menendez submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Electing a Member to a certain standing committee of the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be and is hereby elected 
to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
            Committee on Small Business: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 6781

WAYNE ELLIOTT WILKERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK PERRY, Secretary of Public Safety , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 00158

- WO

- JLW )

Submitted : February 1 7 , 2017 Decided: September 11, 2017

Before KING , AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Wayne Elliott Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Elliot Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Wilkerson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because it is possible that Wilkerson could cure the defects in his petition through amendment, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y , Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 25 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
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 Annual Report of Woodhead Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending October 2, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Philippe Lemaitre, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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.



|    |  |                         
|--- |  | ------------------------
|    | 
|BY: |  | /S/    PHILIPPE
LEMAITRE
|    |  | Philippe Lemaitre       
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer 



December 15, 2004



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 31, 2013∗

 Decided February 19, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 12-3214

MARCEL POP,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the 

United States,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an 

Order from the Board of 

Immigration Appeals.

No. A071 030 710

Order

The petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Anaya-Aguilar v. 

Holder, 683 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 2012).

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

2
#### Raymond S. BURNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia; Northern Virginia Transportation Commission; Northern Virginia Transportation Authority; Virginia Department of Transportation, Defendants.

No. 12-1903.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 7, 2013.

*215Kevin M. Leach, Turbitt, O’Herron & Leach, PLLC, Burke, Virginia, for Appellant. Nicholas S. Nunzio, Jr., Associate General Counsel, Carol B. O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond S. Burns, Jr. appeals the district court’s order granting the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment on his negligence complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Burns v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.,*No. 1:12-cv-00123-CMH-TRJ (E.D.Va. July 13, 2012). 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-6213

JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-97-100-BR)

Submitted: April 18, 2002

Decided: May 3, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s orders denying

his motion for a court order and denying reconsideration. Ellerbe’s

motion relates to his conviction for aiding and abetting a conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994) and 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846

(West 1999 & Supp. 2001), which we affirmed on direct appeal. See

United States v. Ellerbe, No. 98-4058, 1999 WL 64289 (4th Cir. Feb.

11, 1999) (unpublished). 

The proper basis to seek to invalidate a conviction is a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Because

Ellerbe has previously filed a motion seeking relief under § 2255, see

United States v. Ellerbe, No. 00-7472, 2000 WL 1862099 (4th Cir.

Dec. 20, 2000) (unpublished), however, he must seek authorization

from this Court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001)

prior to filing a successive motion under § 2255. Because Ellerbe has

not sought this authorization, and counsel stated that Ellerbe had

already received a complete copy of the documents he sought in the

present motion, the district court properly denied his motion. 

Accordingly, we deny Ellerbe’s several motions for appointment of

counsel on appeal and affirm the orders of the district court. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. ELLERBE
----

**Exhibit        99.**
**1**

**VAIL        RESORTS**

**NEWS        RELEASE**

**FOR        IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

**Investor        Relations: **

**Media        Contacts:**

**VAIL        RESORTS’ ROGER MCCARTHY LEAVING COMPANY TO START A NEW SKI RESORT IN RUSSIA**

*SKI*

----

**About        Vail Resorts**
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment
Number 2 to Registration Statement Number 2-74481 on Form S-8 dated January 28,
1983, as amended and supplemented to date, Post-Effective Amendment Number 3 to
Registration Statement Number 2-74481 on Form S-8 dated October 10, 1983, Post-
Effective Amendment Number 1 to Registration Statement Number 2-97149 on Form S-
8 dated September 30, 1985, Post-Effective Amendment Number 3 to Registration
Statement Number 2-76480 on Form S-8 dated April 22, 1985, Post-Effective
Amendment Number 2 to Registration Statement Number 2-70806 on Form S-8 dated
May 20, 1981, Post-Effective Amendment Numbers 2, 1-A and 1-B to Registration
Statement Number 33-04320 on Form S-4 dated March 26, 1986, as supplemented and
amended to date, Post-Effective Amendment Numbers 2-A and 2-B to Registration
Statement Number 33-04320 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 dated June 1, 1987,
Registration Statement Numbers 33-35762 and 33-35763 on Form S-8 dated July 6,
1990, Registration Statement Number 33-52295 on Form S-8 dated February 16,
1994, Registration Statement Number 33-58323 on Form S-8 dated March 31, 1995,
and Registration Statement Number 333-03753 on Form S-3 dated May 15, 1996 of
our report dated December 16, 1996 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Whittaker Corporation in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended October 31, 1996.  We also consent to the reference to our firm under
the caption "Experts" in the aforementioned Registration Statements insofar as
that reference relates to our report for the year ended October 31, 1996.

                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California
January 28, 1997
**EXHIBIT
      21 - LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**







Wainoco
      Resources Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation





Wainoco
      Oil & Gas Company (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Wainoco Resources Inc.





Frontier
      Holdings Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation





Frontier
      Refining & Marketing Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Holdings Inc.





Frontier
      Refining Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.





Frontier
      Oil and Refining Company (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.





Frontier
      Pipeline Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.





Frontier
      El Dorado Refining Company (incorporated in Delaware),


a
      subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

KISOR, MIZER, and THORNHILL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Tony E. DEDOLPH

Chief Petty Officer (E-7), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202100150 (f rev)

_________________________

Decided: 27 June 2024

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judges:

Hayes C. Larsen (motions, trial)

Derek D. Butler (rehearing on sentence)

Sentence adjudged 6 October 2023 by a general court-martial convened 

at Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to 

E-4, confinement for 18 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.1

For Appellant: 

Major Joshua P. Keefe, USMC

1 Appellant was credited with having served 701 days of pretrial confinement.
United States v. Dedolph, NMCCA No. 202100150 (f rev)

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, 

pursuant to his pleas of conspiracy to commit assault and obstruct justice, violation of a lawful general order, involuntary manslaughter, and obstruction 

of justice, in violation of Articles 81, 92, 119, and 134, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ).2 The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, 

confinement for 10 years, and a dishonorable discharge

We affirmed the findings on initial appeal, but set aside the sentence and 

returned to record to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to 

an appropriate convening authority with authority to order a sentencing rehearing.3 At the rehearing, a military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction 

to E-4, confinement for 18 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. 

After careful consideration of the post-appellate record, submitted without 

assignment of error, and having already affirmed the findings, we have determined that the sentence is correct in law and fact and that no error materially 

prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred.4

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON

Clerk of Court

2 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 892, 919, and 934 (2016).

3 United States v. Dedolph, No. 202100150, 2022 CCA LEXIS 658 (N-M. Ct. Crim. 

App. Nov. 15, 2022) (unpublished).

4 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.