alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.21


Fiscal Year 2007

Criteria For Performance Evaluation

Of The CEO


1.                  The CEO will
direct the operation of the company in such a way as to achieve the fiscal year
’07 projected earnings per share of $__.


2.                  The CEO will
direct the operation of the company in such a way as to achieve fiscal year ’07
projected sales of $__ billion.


3.                  The CEO will
oversee the successful rollout of the Sales and Business Strategy organization
changes _________________________________.


4.                  Improve the
overall diversity of Cintas salaried partners _____________

_____________________________________________________________.


5.                  The CEO will
focus the necessary resources to achieve the total company sales rep turnover
goal of ___%.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 7, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00647

- CV

IN RE Mary WINTERS and Mila Cheatom

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 5, 2016, R elator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered the petition and is of the opinion that Relator s are not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). T he

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on October 7, 2016

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WI TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015

- CI

- 03926 , styled Mary Winters and Mila Cheatom v. 738 Property,

LLC, et al , pending in the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh

presiding.
EXHIBIT 11.1

PLUMA, INC.


COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                (UNAUDITED)                           (UNAUDITED)
                                                                THREE MONTHS                          SIX MONTHS
                                                               ENDED JUNE 30,                       ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                           1999              1998              1999                1998
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>                <C>                   <C>

LOSS AVAILABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS -
     Net loss available to common shareholders         $(34,429,209)     $(1,718,296)      $(44,454,033)       $ (2,599,979)
                                                       -------------     ------------      -------------       -------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING:
     Common shares outstanding                            8,109,152         8,109,152        8,109,152           8,109,152

     Assumed exercise of stock options
                                                        ------------     -------------     -------------       ------------
         Total                                            8,109,152         8,109,152        8,109,152           8,109,152
                                                        ===========      =============     ============        ===========

LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
     Basic and diluted                                    $   (4.25)       $    (.21)        $    (5.48)          $    (.32)
                                                        ============     ============      =============       = ===========


</TABLE>
                                                                           21
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

      ( print page 11048)    
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Computer-Communications Research (1192).                    

*Date/Time:*                         February 22-23, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John Cozzens, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1145, Arlington, VA Telephone: (703) 292-8912.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals as a part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

*Reason for Late Notice:*                         Conflicting schedules of members and the necessity to proceed with the review of the proposals.                    

Dated: February 14, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-4164  Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0223. SHANA BURWELL et al. v. GWINNETT COUNTY SCHOOL

DISTRICT d/b/a GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al. 

Shana Burwell and Matthew Burwell, Sr., (the “Plaintiffs”), pro se, filed an

action for damages and for injunctive relief against the Gwinnett County School

District, J. Alvin Wilbanks, individually and in his official capacity assuperintendent

of the Gwinnett County Board of Education, and Thomas Trippany, individually and

in his official capacity as principal of Shiloh Elementary School (the “Defendants”). 

The trial court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice after the

Plaintiffs failed to appear at a calendar call and the Defendants made a motion to

dismiss for lack of proper service. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a “notice of

appeal” in this Court, which we construed as an application for discretionary appeal.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), a party may file a direct appeal from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below,

except as provided in Code Section 5-6-35.” It does not appear that any provision of

OCGA § 5-6-35, the discretionary appeal statute, applies here. Rather, the trial

court’s dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiffs’ complaint constituted a final

judgment. 

We will grant a timely application for discretionary appeal if the lower court’s

order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED, and the Plaintiffsshall have ten daysfrom the date

of this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. If the Plaintiffs have already

December 31, 2018
filed a timely notice of appeal in the trial court, they need not file a second notice.1

The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 The Plaintiffs appear to have already filed a notice of appeal in the trial court. 

The clerk of the trial court requested an amended notice of appeal with additional

information. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a “notice of appeal” in this Court,

which is the subject of this application. If the Plaintiffs intended to file an amended

notice of appeal, then they should do so in the trial court.

12/31/2018
const sideNavBreakpoint = getComputedStyle(document.querySelector(':root')).getPropertyValue('--sidenav-breakpoint');

function FSSideNav() {
    const container = document.getElementsByClassName("layout--twocol-section--25-75")[0];
    const sideNav = document.getElementsByClassName("layout__region layout__region--first")[0];
    const content = document.getElementsByClassName("layout__region layout__region--second")[0];

    if (container != null) {
        if (window.innerWidth < sideNavBreakpoint) {
            container.insertBefore(content, sideNav);
        } else {
            container.insertBefore(sideNav, content);
        }
    }
}

window.onresize = FSSideNav;
FSSideNav();
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1486

STANLEY CHEESEBORO,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CITY OF COLUMBIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-02173-JFA)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Cheeseboro, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles, 

III, NICKLES LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Cheeseboro appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action filed 

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Cheeseboro v. City of Columbia, No. 

3:11-cv-02173-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2013). 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
#### COMMONWEALTH OIL *&*GAS CO et al. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION et al.

No. 24334.

Feb. 12, 1935.

T. ,T. Flannelly, Paul B. Mason, Edward H. Chandler, Summers Hardy, and Frank Orr, for plaintiffs in error.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization et al., cause No. 24271, this day decided (170 Okla. 517, 41 P. [2d] 453), having disposed of this matter, the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATIONS
OF ADAM BLUMENFELD, CHAIRMAN AND


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND JOHN PITTS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officers of Sport Supply Group, Inc. hereby certify
that (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sport Supply Group, Inc. for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(2) the information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Sport Supply Group, Inc.





Dated:
      May 14, 2009
                  /s/
      Adam BlumenfeldAdam
      Blumenfeld,
                    Chairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer





Dated:
      May 14, 2009
                  /s/
      John PittsJohn
      Pitts,
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
Order filed, May 11, 2022

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

____________ NO. 01

- 22

- 00286

- CR

STEPHEN CHARLES HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On App eal from the 207th District Court

Comal County, Texas Trial Court Case CR2016

- 725



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due May 2, 2022.

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. Th e record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Frances Janezic , the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal , if any, within 30 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM
#### In Re: Kevin Lamont WALKER, Petitioner.

No. 10-2109.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided Dec. 27, 2010.

Kevin Lamont Walker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Lamont Walker petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to resentence him. We conclude that Walker is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 894, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007). The relief sought by Walker is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2014-0646.

#### Campbell v. Bunting.

Marion App. No. 9-14-08. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County. The records of this court indicate that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due July 17, 2014, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and *1489therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that this cause is dismissed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals for Marion County.
Amendment No. 3 dated June 23, 2006 to Master Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.34 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 3 to Master Services Agreement (this
“Amendment”) is entered into this 23rd day of June 2006 between Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc. (“HTSC”) and Verizon Select Services Inc. (“VSSI”). 
 WHEREAS, HTSC and VSSI are parties to that certain Master Services Agreement effective May 2, 2005 (as amended by Amendment No 1 and Amendment No 2, the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, VSSI provides HTSC with certain communications and related services; and 
 WHEREAS, upon the scheduled termination of the Agreement, HTSC intends to cease using Carrier Identification Code (“CIC”) 6224 and begin using a different CIC
obtained by HTSC and to transition Data Circuits to an alternative provider; 
 WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that HTSC will need to continue to use
VSSI’s Services for a limited period of time as it transitions to the new CIC and new Data Circuit provider; 
 WHEREAS, VSSI and HTSC desire to extend
and modify certain aspects of the Agreement to accommodate this transition, 
 NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the Agreement. 
 2. In Section 1 of the Agreement, the
term “Initial Term” is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 “Initial Term” shall mean the period
commencing on the Effective Date and expiring at 12:01 am Eastern Time, June 28, 2006. 
 3. For avoidance of doubt, the rates that shall apply to the
switched Services provided by VSSI under this Amendment shall be the minute of use rates specified in Annex A, Section B (Prices) as previously amended. 







 4. Except as expressly amended herein, all terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused its duly authorized representative to execute this Amendment on such Party’s behalf on the date first set forth above.

  

									
	Verizon Select Services Inc.	 		 	Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc.
			
		 		 	
	 By:
	 	 Stephen E. Smith
	 		 	 By:
	 	 Alan M. Oshima

	 Title:
	 	 Authorized Representative
	 		 	 Title:
	 	 SVP, General Counsel & Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statements of operations for the six months ended June 30, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         8,248,821
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,287,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,401,181
<INVENTORY>                                    40,048,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               68,081,055
<PP&E>                                         67,429,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                 29,004,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,001,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,845,915
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       36,849,127
<OTHER-SE>                                     (53,693,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,001,050
<SALES>                                        74,512,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               74,512,206
<CGS>                                          76,401,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  76,401,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,444,533)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,768,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (44,454,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (44,454,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (44,454,033)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (5.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (5.48)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Bruce L. Bisson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Torch Energy Royalty Trust,for which Wilmington Trust Company acts as Trustee;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15(e)), or for causingsuch procedures to be established or maintained, for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to the extent Iconsider reasonable on information provided to me by Torch Energy Advisors Incorporated.        Date: March 31, 2006 By:  /s/ Bruce L. Bisson    Bruce L. Bisson    Vice PresidentWilmington Trust Company