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 OPERATIONS FOUND
ON PAGES 32 AND 33 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             316
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,458
<PP&E>                                         128,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          758,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       774,221
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   287,031
<SALES>                                        483,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,604
<CGS>                                        1,009,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,009,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,556
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (555,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (556,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (556,782)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.60)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          88,457
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,213
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                61,839
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 6,146
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    453,889
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,519
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,406
<LOANS>                                      1,912,832
<ALLOWANCE>                                     26,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,675,010
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,013,532
<SHORT-TERM>                                   123,944
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             28,156
<LONG-TERM>                                    340,193
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,286
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,675,010
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 85,548
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,351
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,950
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               102,849
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              41,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,331
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           47,518
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,675
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 204
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 52,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,575
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,575
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,618
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.52
<LOANS-NON>                                     17,437
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,399
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                25,998
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,495
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,325
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               26,503
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            26,503
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Jimmy Lee Duncan, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-203246

Appeal From Colleton County D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge

Mem orandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-068 Submitted September 22, 2015 – Filed December 2, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender R obert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for

Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General James Rutledge Johnson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Blick , 325 S.C. 636, 642, 481 S.E.2d 452, 455 (Ct. App. 1997) (finding, as a ge neral rule, a prison discip linary sanction will not barsubsequent criminal prosecution); see also Pruitt v. State , 274 S.C. 565, 570, 266 S.E.2d 779, 781 (1980) (noting that "[t]he initiation of criminal process against [an inmate] is certainly not foreclosed by a prior administrative disposition"); State v. Jolly , 405 S.C. 622, 627, 749 S.E.2d 114, 117 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the im position of any additional sanction that could be described as punishment. The Clause protects against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense , and only then when such occurs in successive pleadings." (e mphasis added) (citations omitted)); cf. State v. Thrift , 312 S.C. 282, 301 n.12, 440 S.E.2d 341, 352 n.12 (1994) (noting "a civil as

well as criminal sanction constituted punishment for double jeopardy purposes only where the sanctions as applied served the goal of punishment").

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS 291

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION - Continued

Chicago, IL Associate Regional Director Career Incumbent

(Enforcement)

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Associate Regional Director Career Incumbent

(Enforcement)

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Associate Regional Director Career Incumbent

(Regulation)

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Central Regional Office

Denver, CO Regional Director Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Associate Regional Director Career Incumbent

(Enforcement)

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Fort Worth District Office

Fort Worth, TX District Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

Pacific Regional Office

Los Angeles, CA Regional Director Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Associate Regional Director Career Incumbent

(Enforcement)

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Associate Regional Director Career Incumbent

(Regulation)

ES CA ...... ...... ......

San Francisco District Office

San Francisco, CA District Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

Arlington, VA Director Selective Service System Gil Coronado EX PAS IV ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Director Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Special Assistant Archibald J. Kielly GS SC 15 ...... ......

 Do........... Director for Public and Career Incumbent

Congressional Affairs

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF THE 

ADMINISTRATOR

Washington, DC Administrator Aida Alvarez EX PAS III ...... ......

 Do........... Chief Financial Management Career Incumbent

Officer

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Administrator Fred Hochberg EX PAS IV ...... ......

 Do........... Chief of Staff Mary K. Swedin ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Chief Operating Officer Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Counselor Elizabeth Kim GS SC 15 ...... ......

 Do........... Counselor to the Administrator Bettie Baca ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Chief of Staff Michelle Kreiss GS SC 15 ...... ......

 Do........... Special Assistant to the Ben Handford

Administrator

GS SC 13 ...... ......
Exhibit 10.6.3

 

Revised Summary of Standard Compensatory Arrangement for Non-Employee Directors 
 of the Principal Financial Group, Inc. Board of Directors

 

Effective May 17, 2010

 

On May 17, 2010, the board of directors of Principal Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) agreed to revise various components of director compensation.

 

Annual Retainers

 

Effective May 17, 2010, directors who are not employees of the Company or its subsidiaries will receive an annual retainer of $65,000 (payable semiannually), restoring the ten percent reduction imposed on March 28, 2009.  Also effective that day, an annual retainer of $18,000 was established for the chair of the finance committee, a new board committee as of January 1, 2010.  Additional annual retainers received for serving as chair of different committees of the board were also restored.  The annual retainer for serving as the chair of the

 

·                  audit committee was returned to $20,000 from $18,000,

·                  human resources committee was returned to $17,500 from $15,750,

·                  nominating and governance committee was returned to $15,000 from $13,500.

 

The annual retainer for serving as chair of any other standing or ad hoc committee of the board was restored to $5,000 from $4,500.  The annual retainer for serving as the presiding director of the board was returned to $15,000 from $13,500.  The nominating and governance committee will determine the portion of the annual retainer payable to a director who first becomes eligible for compensation during a board year.

 

Attendance fees for board and committee meetings were also returned to prior amounts.  Non-employee directors receive a fee of $2,500 per day for attendance in person at each regular or special meeting of the board.  Directors receive committee meeting fees of $1,500 for attendance in person, unless the meeting occurs on the day before or on the day of a full board meeting, in which case the meeting fee will be $1,300.  Directors also receive a committee or full board meeting fee of $1,000 for participating in a telephone conference call or videoconference meeting.

 

Restricted Stock Unit Grants

 

Beginning in May 2009, at the close of each annual meeting, each non-employee director will receive $95,000 worth of restricted stock units (unless a greater or lesser amount is determined to be appropriate by the nominating and governance committee).  There was no change to this grant value at the May 17, 2010 meeting.

 











 

These restricted stock units will vest upon the director’s continued service at the next annual meeting.  The receipt of the restricted stock units will be deferred at least until the director’s retirement or termination from the Board.  Any director first elected subsequent to an annual meeting will be granted the number of restricted stock units as determined by the committee.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-17-00437-CR



### ____________________ LEVI LEVINESS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B160503-R

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Levi Leviness has filed a mo tion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant pers onally and joined by counsel of record. No opinion has issued in this appeal. The motion is granted, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

________ ________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice2 Submitted on May 22, 2018 Opinion Delivered May 23, 2018 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of
the Company.
 By:
    /s/ C. Neil BeerC. Neil BeerChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ I. Michael SweatmanI. Michael SweatmanChief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANILO DEJESUS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 561 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of January, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL NFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOYKIN LODGING COMPANY AS OF JUNE 30, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         593,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 610,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        273,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     293,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   610,931
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,405
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,138)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT UTILIZES AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE TOTAL CURRENT
ASSETS AND TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES ARE NOT APPLICABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
exhibit1032.htm







Exhibit (10.32)




November 8, 2010












Ms. Laura G. Quatela


(address intentionally omitted)












Dear Laura,







This letter is to confirm that, in connection with your election as General Counsel, Chief Intellectual Property Officer and Vice President of Eastman Kodak Company, effective January 1, 2011, you agree to waive any and all rights to receive the Gross-Up Payment as defined and described in Exhibit D of the Eastman Kodak Company Executive Protection Plan.







Please indicate your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing below and returning the original of this letter to me.







    Sincerely,







                                                                                                /s/ Robert L. Berman

Robert L. Berman


Chief Human Resources Officer


Eastman Kodak Company




 












RLB:dlm






















Agreed:







/s/ Laura G. Quatela


Laura G. Quatela
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1468
NORMAN L. STRADER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL R. MCLEOD, JR.; MCNAIR LAW FIRM; JOHN W. HARTE; GEORGE CANTELOU, JR., Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-1518
NORMAN L. STRADER, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE CANTELOU, JR., Defendant - Appellant, and DANIEL R. MCLEOD, JR.; MCNAIR LAW FIRM; JOHN W. HARTE, Defendants.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1102-8-BD) Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 14, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Strader, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Buford Wallace, WALLACE & TINKER, Charleston, South Carolina; Wilburn Brewer, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina; Frederick Albert Gertz, GERTZ & MOORE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Norman L. Strader appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Strader’s 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. George Cantelou, Jr., cross appeals the denial of his counterclaim based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and theSouth Carolina Frivolous Proceeding Sanctions Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Strader v. McLeod, No. CA-98-1102-8-BD (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 1999). We deny Strader’s motions to dismiss Appellees’ brief and for summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 10.43
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT
 Agreement Effective Date Company Employee
 RECITALS
 Prior Agreement
    Definitions
 Awards
 Base Salary
 Cause




---



##### 



CCC
 Change of Control
 Exchange Act
  Transaction
  Change of Control Termination
 COBRA
 Code
 Company Equity Plans
 2




---



##### 



Release Exhibit
A
 Resignation for Good Reason
     Severance Payments
 Severance Period
 Change of Control Termination
 Payment upon Change of Control Termination
   3




---



##### 



Employee Release
 Other Benefits
 Dispute Resolution Procedures
 4




---



##### 



At-Will Employment
 General Provisions
 Governing Law
 Successors and Assigns
 No Waiver of Breach
 Severability
 Entire Agreement; Amendment
 Modification; Waivers
 5




---



##### 



Duplicate Counterparts
 Interpretation
 No Mitigation
 Withholding of Taxes
 Drafting Ambiguities; Representation by Counsel
  6




---



##### 



AVANIR PharmaceuticalsBy:
    /s/ Keith KatkinKeith KatkinPresident and Chief Executive OfficerEmployee/s/ Randall KayeRandall Kaye, M.D. 7




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 GENERAL RELEASE
 Release   Effective Date  Company   Employee
 RECITALS
 Agreement
  AGREEMENT
 Release Agents Related Entities ADEA
 Section 1542 Waiver
 8




---



##### 



Waiver of Certain Claims
 No Undue Influence
 Governing Law
 Severability
 Counterparts
 Dispute Resolution Proceedings Code
 9




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Modification; Waivers
 Amendment
 Dated:Employee Name 10
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONNIE LEE DUNN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-97-761)

Submitted: April 9, 1999 Decided: April 27, 1999

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Carlyle Steele, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, A. Bradley Parham, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We grant Dunn’s motion for leave to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but find no merit in the issues raised by Dunn.

2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Lee Dunn appeals his convictions for armed bank robbery

and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Dunn alleges the

district court erred in two respects. First, that the court violated Fed. R. Evid. 609 by denying his pretrial motion in limine.

Second, that the court erred by determining that he should be

sentenced as a career offender. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 4B1.1 (1997). We have reviewed the issues raised by counsel and find no reversible error. Thus, we affirm Dunn’s conviction and sentence.*

We do note, however, that the district court’s Judgment and

Commitment Order appears to have a clerical error with respect to

Dunn’s conviction for use of a firearm during a crime of violence.

The judgment properly notes that Dunn’s conviction for Count Two of

the superseding indictment is a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §

924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1999) but erroneously describes the crime as

“[p]ossession of a firearm by a convicted felon” rather than a

conviction for using and carrying a firearm during a crime of

violence. Either party may file a motion in the district court to

correct this typographical error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED