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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         218,956
<SECURITIES>                                     4,795
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,674
<INVENTORY>                                     33,199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               336,963
<PP&E>                                       1,749,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                 541,958 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,781,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          207,764
<BONDS>                                        397,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,315
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,045,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,781,434
<SALES>                                      1,566,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,897,144
<CGS>                                          976,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,410,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               224,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                254,817
<INCOME-TAX>                                    98,869
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            155,948
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   155,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doug S. Aron,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.





/s/ Doug S.
Aron


Doug S.
Aron


Executive
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer





February
26, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7219

BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT C. LEWIS; W. DAVID GUICE; SCOTLAND 

COUNTY/MUNICIPALITY/LAURINBURG, NC; SORRELL SAUNDERS; 

NAKISHA PARRISH; NORTH CAROLINA PRISON LEGAL SERVICES, 

INCORPORATED; INA HINTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01358-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Matthew Woodward, Assistant 

Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina; Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, WinstonSalem, North Carolina; Mark Russell Sigmon, SIGMON LAW, PLLC, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Michael Pickens appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and 

dismissing Pickens’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Pickens v. Lewis, No. 1:16-cv-01358-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2017). 

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
exhibit10_52b.htm


    Exhibit
10.52b

     

     

     

    AMENDMENT
TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    This
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is entered into on
March ___, 2008 (the “Effective Date”) by and between CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Marwan Fawaz, an
adult resident of Colorado (the “Executive”).

    


    WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive entered into a Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement effective August 1, 2007 (the “Agreement”);

     

    WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
herein;

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally
bound and in consideration of the covenants and promises set forth herein, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the
Executive agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

    


    In
Section 6 of the Agreement, the Executive’s eligibility to receive a Target
Bonus of “up to 70%” of Annual Base Salary is hereby revised to state “up to
75%” of Annual Base Salary.

    


    The
Company and the Executive agree that all other provisions of the Agreement
(including the remainder of Section 6) shall remain in full force and effect
until expiration or earlier termination upon the terms therein.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have each caused this Amendment
to Restated and Amended Employment Agreement to be duly executed on its behalf
as of the date first above written.

    


                    CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

    


    


                    By: /s/ Lynn F.
Ramsey

                    Name:  Lynn
F. Ramsey

                    Title:  SVP,
Human Resources

    


    


                    EXECUTIVE

    


                    /s/ Marwan Fawaz

                    Name:  Marwan
Fawaz
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                         Site visit review of a Science and Technology Center on Real-Time Functional Imaging (STROBE)—Division of Materials Research (DMR) #1203                              ( print page 40172)    

*Date and Time:*                         September 6, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. September 7, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         University of Colorado, Boulder—Auditorium C120, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Complex (SEEC), CU Boulder East Campus, Boulder, Colorado 80303.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Charles Ying, Program Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-8428.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning progress of the Science and Technology Center.                    

## Agenda

### Wednesday, September 6, 2017

8:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Open—Review of STROBE

10:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

### Thursday, September 7, 2017

8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

*Reason for Late Notice:*                         Due to unforeseen scheduling complications and the necessity to proceed with the review.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         Topics to be discussed and evaluated during closed portions of the site review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: August 21, 2017.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-17927 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### CONNER et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.

C. A. No. 2738-47.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Oct. 25, 1950.

*113George R. Stewart, Riley A. Gwynn, Carl Lutz, and John W. Cragun, all of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

Thomas S. Jackson, Hugh Cox, John R. Wall, Carl McFarland, and Stephen J. Angland, ail of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

LAWS, Chief Judge.

The question before the Court is as to the signing of an order based upon the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of. Columbia Circuit.

Plaintiffs, now employees of railroad company defendant, acting for themselves and others in the same class .have established their right, upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 223, 177 F.2d 854, to elect to transfer from passenger to freight service. Their counsel claims the same right should extend also to former employees of the railroad who were forced to resign to accept more remunerative positions by reason of their not being given the right of election by the railroad company. It is insisted the order of the Court should include such right to this class of former employees.

The language of Rule 23, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., permits class actions where the parties “are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court”. There, is no showing made that the members of the class last referred to are numerous. The only statement in the pleadings with regard to them is that members of the class represented by plaintiffs “have and may hereafter be forced entirely to abandon their occupation as trainmen in order to find employment which will permit them to support and maintain themselves and their families.” At the oral argument, counsel for plaintiffs stated he was not sure any of this class exist who will wish to exercise the right to transfer. '

There is doubt whether plaintiffs are entitled to represent employees who have re■signed, since the interests of the latter well may conflict with plaintiffs’ interests.

For the reasons stated, I am of opinion that the order on the present state of the pleadings be' approved in the form submitted by the defendants The Pennsylvania Railroad Company and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
#### TOSHIO JOJI et al. v. CLARK.

No. 27557-G.

United States District Court N. D. California, S. D.

April 20, 1951.

Sans, Hudson & Perry, Watsonville, Cal., for plaintiff.

Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., San-Francisco, Cal., Valentine C. Hammack, Percy Barshay, Spec. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for J. Howard McGrath, Atty. Gen. of the United States.

HARRIS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, former owners 'of certain agricultural lands in the Pajaro Valley, Santa Cruz County, California, commenced this action under Section 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 9(a), to recover the property from Tom C. Clark. In the complaint which was filed August 20, 1947, the defendant is designated as Alien Property Custodian. Since the office of Alien Property Custodian ceased to- function as such on October 14, 1946, CFR 1946 Supp. 160, the defendant should have been named as Attorney General, since the functions of the office were transferred to the Attorney General of the United States.

On August 24, 1949, Mr. Clark resigned as Attorney General and on the same date J. Howard McGrath succeeded him. Until the present motion for substitution of defendants, plaintiff failed to substitute. Mr. McGrath for Mr. Clark.

Under Rule 25(d) of the Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., plaintiff is permitted six months in which to move for' substitution in the event an officer of the United States dies, resigns or otherwise ceases to hold office pending litigation in which he is named as a party. The six months’ period expired on February 24, 1950.

Although the provisions of Rule 25(d) may appear harsh and inequitable under the circumstances, this Court has no alternative but to dismiss the action on the ground that it has abated. Such is the holding in Snyder v. Buck, 340 U.S. 15, 71 S.Ct. 93. Plaintiff has made strenuous efforts to distinguish the instant case from Becker Steel Company v. Hicks, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 300; Id., 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 497; Kutroff v. Sutherland, 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 500; and the recent decisions of Schnoedewind v. Clark, D.C.S.D. New York, 11 F.R.D. 106, Wisconsin v. Clark, D.C.W.D.Wis., 1950,11 F.R.D. 102, by contending that the suit before this Court is inherently a quiet title action. Plaintiff asserts that Thomas B. Bishop Co. v. Santa Barbara County, 9 Cir., 96 F.2d *254198, alleviates plaintiffs’ failure to apply for substitution of defendants within the six months’ period. The facts alleged in the complaint preclude the Court from applying the doctrine of the Bishop case.

Under the circumstances, plaintiffs’ failure to move for a substitution of J. Howard McGrath in his representative capacity for Tom C. Clark within the six months’ period, precludes them from continuing the instant litigation.

It is ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for substitution of party defendant be, and the same hereby is, denied and defendant’s motion to dismiss the action be, and the same hereby is, granted.
#### SERVICE LIQUOR DISTRIBUTORS, Inc., Plaintiff, v. CALVERT DISTILLERS CORPORATION, Seagram Distillers Corporation, Calvert Distilling Company, Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., Ramapo Wine & Liquor Corporation, Charles Merinoff, Tubie Resnick, Victor A. Fischel, Harry Levinthal, Samuel Greenstein and Moe Sheinig, Defendants.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 3, 1955.

See, also, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 510.

*514Lord, Day & Lord, New York City, for plaintiff.

Lexow & Jenkins, Suffern, for defendant Ramapo Wine & Liquor Corp.

BICKS, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to inspect the books of account of defendant Ramapo Wine & Liquor Corporation for the purpose of ascertaining therefrom the quantity of the products of the defendants, Calvert Distillers Corporation or Calvert Distilling Company, it purchased and sold during the period March 1, 1948, through December 26, 1951, the net earnings it realized from the sale of the said products and its total net earnings during the same period.

Upon -the argument of the motion representations were made to the Court that the sale of Calvert products constituted a relatively small fraction of the total volume of business done by Ramapo and further that Ramapo maintains one set of books which reflect its entire business. The papers on this motion disclose that plaintiff and defendant Ramapo are competitors and are engaged in an economic struggle marked with rancor and intensity. In order to obtain the information desired by plaintiff an examination of all the books of account of Ramapo will be necessary though the data contained therein dealing with the purchase and sale of other than Calvert products is not relevant to the issues in this case and indeed is not sought by plaintiff. Each case where an inspection of books of accounts is resisted on the ground that it will disclose confidential information to a competitor is sui generis.

Plaintiff will obtain all the information to which it is properly entitled and the legitimate interests of the defendant Ramapo will be properly protected if the inspection is conducted by an independent public accountant. The parties may agree on an independent public accountant to perform such services. If they cannot agree then each of them shall submit the names of three public accountants to the Court and the Court will make the selection. The inspection should be confined to the purchases and sales of Calvert products during the period March 1, 1948, through December 26, 1951 (broken down according to product), and the gross profit on such sales. Data as to names of customers and details as to individual sales shall not be disclosed by the accountant. The information is to be prepared on an annual basis, the annual period to correspond as nearly as convenient to the defendant Ramapo’s annual accounting period. In all other respects the motion is denied.

Plaintiff is seeking the inspection and it should bear the costs thereof.

Settle order on notice.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000972 10-NOV-2015 08:33 AM
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 18, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136856 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136856 

 COA: 285015 

Oakland CC: 2007-216676-FH 

ROBERT SCOTT LONG,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2008 order 

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. 

l1218 

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. 

December 18, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------



                     AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment dated March 9, 2009 hereby amends the Employment Agreement
dated August 1, 2004 (the "Employment Agreement"), as amended by and between
iVoice Technology, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (hereinafter referred to as
the "Company"), having an office at 750 Highway 34, Matawan, New Jersey 07747
and Jerome Mahoney, having his office at 750 Rt. 34, Matawan, NJ 07747
(hereinafter referred to as the "Executive").



                              W I T N E S S E T H :

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive mutually desire to amend the
Employment Agreement; and

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties agree as
follows:

     1. Term. The term of the Executive's employment hereunder shall be extended
to July 31, 2016.

     2. All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
date written below.


IVOICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.                      JEROME MAHONEY


By: ___________________                      By:___________________
    Frank Esser
    Title: Director



Date:__________________                      Date:__________________
JAG
Media Holdings, Inc.

    6865
S.W. 18th Street,
Suite B13

    Boca
Raton, FL 33433

    


    March 12,
2009

    


    YA Global
Investments, L.P.

    101
Hudson Street, Suite 3700

    Jersey
City, NJ 07302

    


    
      	
              Re:

            	
              Warrants
      to purchase shares of JAG Media Holdings, Inc. (“JAG
      Media”)
      held by YA Global Investments, L.P. (“YA
      Global”).

            


    

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    This
letter shall set forth our understanding with respect to the warrant (the "Warrant") issued on
May 24, 2006 held by YA (Warrant No. CCP-3) to purchase 2,000,000 shares of JAG
Media's common stock at an exercise price of $0.60 per share.  The
warrant is currently exercisable by YA Global on a cash, or a cashless, basis,
at YA Global's sole discretion.  For good and valuable consideration,
YA Global and JAG Media agree as follows: (a) the exercise price of the entire
2,000,000 shares underlying the warrant shall be reduced to $0.07 per share, and
(b) YA Global shall exercise such 2,000,000 shares on a cash basis, providing
JAG Media with $140,000 in cash. Warrant No. CCP-3, and its
underlying warrant shares, are not registered for resale and, accordingly, shall
be subject to the rights and restrictions of Rule 144.

    


    In
connection with the agreements set forth herein, JAG Media represents that it
has proper approval and authority of its board of directors to enter into this
agreement, and that upon exercise and payment of the exercise price as set forth
above, the shares to be issued to YA Global shall be fully paid and validly
issued shares of JAG Media.

    


    If the
foregoing accurately reflects your understanding of our agreement regarding the
above matter, please indicate your agreement and acceptance by signing in the
appropriate space below and returning a fully executed and dated copy of this
agreement to the undersigned.

    


    Sincerely
yours,

    


    
      	
              JAG
      Media Holdings, Inc.

               

            	 
      	
              AGREED
      AND ACCEPTED:

              YA
      Global Investments, L.P. 

              (formerly,
      Cornell Capital Partners, L.P.)

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
              By:
      Yorkville Advisors, LLC

            	 
      
	
              By: 
      

            	      
              /s/
      Thomas J. Mazzarisi

            	 
      	
              Its:
      Investment Manager

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Name:
      Thomas J. Mazzarisi

            	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              Title:
      Chairman & CEO

            	 
      	
              By: 
      

            	/s/
      Mark Angelo	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	
              Name:
      Mark Angelo