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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      20,610,114
<SECURITIES>                                   341,156
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,840,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,205,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,997,372
<PP&E>                                     786,292,472
<DEPRECIATION>                             118,102,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             780,840,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       68,562,402
<BONDS>                                    380,280,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,537,562
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,186,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               780,840,517
<SALES>                                    419,820,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           419,820,809
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              363,476,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          29,480,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             30,316,602
<INCOME-TAX>                                11,414,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         18,901,722
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                18,901,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   101.33
        

</TABLE>
exv10w36






Exhibit 10.36




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF KEVIN C. BURNS




     WHEREAS, AMICAS, Inc. (the “Company”) and Kevin C. Burns (“Executive”) entered into an
employment agreement as of April 7, 2008, which was amended by agreement dated December 31, 2008
(collectively the “Agreement”);



     Whereas, the Company and Executive desire to further amend the Agreement; and



     Whereas, all capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to
them in the Agreement.



     NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows.





	 	1.	 	Section 3H is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:






     “H. The severance payments, COBRA payments and any obligation to pay a bonus
(“Severance”) as may be set forth in Sections 3B and 3C above are subject to termination as
follows:




          (i) For a six (6) month period immediately following termination of the Executive’s
employment with the Company, and not foregoing any other rights the Company may have, any
obligation for the Company to pay Severance to Executive shall immediately terminate as of
the date the Executive becomes employed by a Competitor, as defined in the Non-Compete and
Non-Disclosure Agreement (Exhibit 1).




For a six (6) month period immediately following termination of the Executive’s employment
with the Company, the Executive agrees to notify the Company in writing upon his acceptance
of employment with a Competitor.”



     2. Except as specifically modified herein, the terms of the Agreement, and all terms and
conditions of your employment with Company shall remain in full force and effect.



1









 





     IN WITNESS WHEROF, each of the parties has caused this Second Amendment to be executed as of
February 10, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive:

	 	 	 	Company:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Kevin C. Burns

Kevin C. Burns
	 	 	 	/s/ John J. Sviokla

AMICAS, Inc.
	 	 







2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30426 Summary Calendar

JORGE ANDRES IGLESIAS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1990

- - - - - - - - - - September 20, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Andres Iglesias, #19815, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for injunctive relief. We have reviewed the record and Iglesias’ arguments, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief because Iglesias failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. See Lewis v. Casey , 116 S. Ct. 2173,No. 96-30426 - 2 - 2180 (1996); Lakedreams v. Taylor , 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). AFFIRMED.
Technical Contact:	                                    USDL:  05-1571
      (202) 691-6199  ocltinfo@bls.gov
Media Contact:	                                            FOR RELEASE:  10:00 A.M. (EDT)
      (202) 691-5902  	                                    WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005
Internet address:
      http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm

				EMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY, 2005

     Seventy percent of workers in private industry had access to employer-sponsored medical care plans, and
53 percent participated in medical care plans in March 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor reported today.  Sixty percent of workers had access to retirement benefits, with 50
percent participating in at least one type of retirement plan.  These findings are from the Summary, "National
Compensation Survey:  Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2005," published today.  These results
can be found on the BLS Web site http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ebsm0003.pdf.

     These data are from the National Compensation Survey (NCS), which provides comprehensive measures
of occupational earnings, compensation cost trends, and details of benefit provisions.  In addition to health and
retirement plans, the survey also covered paid leave, disability insurance, and other selected benefits.  The
following are some of the major findings:

     *	Most employees covered by medical care plans were in plans requiring employee contributions for
     both single coverage and family coverage. Employee contributions to medical care premiums
     averaged $273.03 per month for family coverage; for single coverage, employee contributions
     averaged $68.96 per month.

     *	Employer premiums for medical care plans averaged $575.77 a month per participant for family
     coverage, for single coverage employer contributions averaged $252.22 a month. Employer
     contributions were higher for those employees who were not required to contribute than for those who
     were.

     *	Twenty-one percent of employees participated in defined benefit retirement plans, and 42 percent in
     defined contribution plans. (Some employees participate in both types.)

     *	Paid leave was the most commonly provided employee benefit in the private sector: paid holidays and
     vacations were available to 77 percent of employees. Paid jury duty leave was also common, available
     to 69 percent of workers. Forty-eight percent of the workers had paid military leave benefits.

     The release and Summary Report are available by e-mail request at ocltinfo@bls.gov, by telephone (202)
691-6199, or on the BLS Internet site, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm.  Regional Information offices, listed
on the Internet site, http://www.bls.gov/bls/regncon.htm, also are available to answer any of your questions.
Nicor Gas
Company

Form 10-K/A

Exhibit 99.01



CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas L. Fisher, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Nicor Gas Company, certify that:



|1) |  | This annual report on Form 10-K/A of Nicor Gas Company 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 this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nicor Gas Company.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date March 7, 2003





/s/ THOMAS L. FISHERThomas L. Fisher Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Shareholders and the Board of Directors
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.:



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement No.
333-52874 on form S-3 and Nos.  33-42278 and 33-50039 on Form S-8 of  Winn-Dixie
Stores,  Inc. of our reports dated August 8, 2001,  relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Winn-Dixie  Stores Inc. and  subsidiaries  as of June 27, 2001
and June 28,  2000;  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
shareholders'  equity,  and  cash  flows  and  related  consolidated   financial
statement schedule for each of the years in the three year period ended June 27,
2001,  which  reports  appear in the June 27, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.



                                                                    KPMG LLP



Jacksonville, Florida
August 8, 2001
NO. SCPW-12-0000533
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MICHAEL TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE RICHARD K. PERKINS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the notice of appeal filed on May 7, 2012 in S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011 purports to appeal the dismissal of the HRPP Rule 40 petition, but no dismissal has occurred. The May 7, 2012 notice of appeal is not a valid notice of appeal and its filing did not transfer jurisdiction of S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011 from the circuit court to the appellate court. The respondent judge's May 17, 2012 decision to the contrary was incorrect. See State v. Ontiveros, 82 Hawai # i 446, 449, 923 P.2d 388, 391) ("Where the notice of appeal is jurisdictionally defective, filing the notice Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000533 14-JUN-2012 09:39 AM2

does not transfer jurisdiction from the trial court to the appellate court."). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the answer provision of HRAP 21(c) is suspended pursuant to HRAP 2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. The respondent judge shall proceed with S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 14, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997   
<CASH>                          $2,664,969   
<SECURITIES>                    0            
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,165,589   
<ALLOWANCES>                    124,952     
<INVENTORY>                     7,805,556   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                13,920,002  
<PP&E>                          10,615,972  
<DEPRECIATION>                  577,839     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  30,311,569  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,444,272   
<BONDS>                         0            
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0            
<PREFERRED>                     0            
<COMMON>                        11,590   
<OTHER-SE>                      10,967,810            
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    30,311,569  
<SALES>                         3,345,379   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,345,379   
<CGS>                           2,980,454   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,980,454 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                26,583      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              3,688,317   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 ($11,740,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0            
<DISCONTINUED>                  0            
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0            
<CHANGES>                       0            
<NET-INCOME>                    (11,740,490) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (1.06)       
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (1.06)       
                                


</TABLE>
November 30, 1998


To the Board of Directors of
Capital Income Builder, Inc.

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Capital Income Builder, Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended
October 31, 1998, we considered its internal control, including
control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing
our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal
control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.  Those
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by errors or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within
a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters
involving internal control and its operation, including controls
for safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of October 31, 1998.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Los Angeles, California
#### Warren Eric ARMSTEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-57047.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Warren Eric Armstead, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

Chung Hae Han, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Dorothy C. Kim, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Federal prisoner Warren Eric Armstead appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error. *See Reynolds v. Thomas,*603 F.3d 1144,1148 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

Armstead contends that his due process rights were violated in the prison disciplinary proceedings finding him guilty of failing to provide a urine sample. The record does not support his contention. Because Armstead received all the process that was due and some evidence supports the disciplinary findings, he is not entitled to relief. *See Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

Armstead also alleges that prison officials violated his First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with the urine sample requested. The appropriate remedy for these claims lies in a civil rights action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), rather than a section 2241 petition. *See Tucker v. Carlson,*925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1991); *see also Hernandez v. Campbell,*204 F.3d *515861, 864 (9th Cir.2000) (section 2241 petitions “challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution”).

We decline to consider Armstead’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, challenging the prison’s policies regarding urine samples. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per cu-riam).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00211-CR

______________________________

ALGERIAN DEWAYNE HARRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22708

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Algerian Dewayne Harris appeals from his conviction on his open plea of guilty to delivery

of a controlled substance (cocaine) in a drug-free zone. Harris also pled "true" to the enhancement

paragraphs of the indictment and was sentenced as a repeat offender to eighteen years' imprisonment.

Harris was represented by appointed counsel at trial and on appeal. Harris' attorney has filed a brief

in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, after a review of the record and

the related law.

Counsel states that he has studied the record and finds no error preserved for appeal that

could be successfully argued. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and

advances two arguable grounds for review. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Harris May 6, 2009, informing Harris of his right to

examine the entire appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel simultaneously filed a

motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Harris filed his response

September 10, 2009.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed

the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders,

1

grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Harris in this case. No substitute

counsel will be appointed. Should Harris wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals, Harris must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review

or Harris must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review

must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for

rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary

review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for

discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

3

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 1, 2009

Date Decided: October 2, 2009

Do Not Publish