alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION
**

Washington, D.C. 20549

**
FORM 10-Q
**

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For quarterly period ended March 31, 2004
Commission file number: 0-16946
**LabOne, Inc.

10101 Renner Blvd.

Lenexa, Kansas 66219

(913) 888-1770

Incorporated in Missouri

I.R.S. Employer Identification Number: 43-1039532

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reportsrequired to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theRegistrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to suchfiling requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes /X/    No /  /
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes /X/    No /  /
Number of shares outstanding of the only class of Registrant's common stock, $.01 par value, as of April 30, 2004 - 17,043,879.

**LabOne, Inc.

 

Form 10-Q for the First Quarter, 2004

Table of Contents

PART I.   FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.   Financial Statements:

   Consolidated Balance Sheets

   Consolidated Statements of Operations

   Consolidated Statement of Stockholders' Equity

   Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

   Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ITEM 2.   Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

   Selected Financial Data 

   First Quarter Analysis      

   Financial Position, Liquidity and Capital Resources 

ITEM 3.   Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

ITEM 4.   Controls and Procedures

PART II.   OTHER      INFORMATION

SIGNATURES****
Use this schedule to show your tax liability for the quarter; DO NOT use it to show your deposits. You must fill out this form

and attach it to Form 941 (or Form 941-SS) if you are a semiweekly schedule depositor or became one because your

accumulated tax liability on any day was $100,000 or more. Write your daily tax liability on the numbered space that

corresponds to the date wages were paid. See Section 11 in Pub. 15 (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide, for details.

16

Report of Tax Liability for Semiweekly Schedule Depositors

Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Tax liability for Month 1

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 11967Q Schedule B (Form 941) Rev. 1-2005

Total liability for the quarter Fill in your total liability for the quarter (Month 1 + Month 2 + Month 3) = Total tax liability for the quarter

Total must equal line 10 on Form 941 (or line 8 on Form 941-SS).



9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Month 1

Tax liability for Month 2

Tax liability for Month 3

. .

.

.

.

OMB No. 1545-0029

9903

Report for this Quarter ...

(Check one.)

1: January, February, March

2: April, May, June

3: July, August, September

4: October, November, December

Schedule B (Form 941):

Month 2

Month 3

Employer identification number

Name (not your trade name)

—

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(Rev. January 2005)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4488]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board; Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Defense Science 
& Technology (S&T) will meet in closed session on March 1-2, 2001; 
March 29-30, 2001; May 3-4, 2001; June 7-8, 2001; June 28-29, 2001; and 
July 26-27, 2001, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. The 
Task Force will address the issues involved in assuring that the U.S. 
continues to gain access to and develop technology from which to gain 
military advantage.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will consider: future 
technologies that should be developed and exploited for military 
applications, particularly potential technologies that provide the U.S. 
military an asymmetric advantage in conflict, in deployment, and at 
home; the appropriate mix of in-house, contractor, university and 
commercial providers of basic and applied research and of advanced 
development; how DoD can leverage technology that is under development 
and produced globally in commercial industry, as well as that which is 
being discovered and demonstrated in the S&T programs funded by both 
other U.S. agencies and other nations; the situation of and the 
contribution of the DoD laboratories in this changing world; and how to 
maintain excellence in in-house S&T endeavors.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly these meetings will 
be closed to the public.
    Due to critical mission requirements and scheduling conflicts, 
there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and subsection 101-
6.1015(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee 
Management, 41 CFR part 101-6, which further requires publication at 
least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting of the Task Force.

    Dated: February 15, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-4488 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 20, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00416

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A.H., AND A.H.,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 00033 Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal of the June 23, 2015 order terminating Appellant mother ’s parental rights, Appellant mother ’s brief was due to be filed with this court on August 17, 2015. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). On the brief’s due date , Appellant mother filed a motion for a twenty

- day extension of time to file h er brief.
Appellant mother ’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant mother ’s brief must be filed with this court by September 8, 2015. See id. Furt her motions for extension of time to file Appellant mother ’s brief will be disfavored. S ee T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2, (directing courts of appeals to dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of August, 201 5

.

___________________________________ Keit h E. Hottle Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SHAMAR STANFORD,Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 141, 2018 § § § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 1511011810 (N) § § § Submitted: May 14, 2018 Decided: May 16, 2018 ORDER This 16 th day of May 2018, it appears to the Court that, on April 4, 2018, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his fa ilure to file his notice of appeal in a timely manner. The appella nt failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period; ther efore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERE BY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), th at the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Gryphon Holdings Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-12775, 33-96922, 33-83630) on Form S-8 of
Gryphon Holdings Inc. of our report dated February 24, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Gryphon Holdings
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1997, and all related schedules, which report
appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of
Gryphon Holdings Inc.


                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
March 27, 1998
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report ofCubist Pharmaceuticals (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W.J. McGirr, ChiefFinancial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Cubist.

March 1, 2007

| /s/ DAVID W.J. MCGIRR                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David W.J.  McGirr                                 |   |
| Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2683

AN ACT

To extend the operation of the migrant student

record transfer system.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2683

AN ACT

To extend the operation of the migrant student record

transfer system.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2683 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RECORD TRANSFER SYSTEM.

2 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding any

3 other provision of Federal law, the Secretary of Education

4 shall extend the contract for the operation of the migrant

5 student record transfer system under section

6 1203(a)(2)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Edu7 cation Act of 1965 to operate such system until such time

8 as the Secretary of Education determines is necessary, but

9 shall not extend such contract beyond June 30, 1995,

10 without conducting a competition.

11 (b) PROGRAM MODIFICATION.—Major modification

12 of such system may be made only after consultation with

13 the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of

14 Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human

15 Resources of the Senate.

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.14


 


Execution Version


 


June 30, 2020


 


Ms. Sharmistha Dubey

c/o Match Group Inc.

8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1400

Dallas, Texas 75231


 


Assignment of Employment Agreement to
New Match


 


Dear Ms. Dubey:


 


This letter specifies the interpretation
and application of Section 4 of the Standard Terms (the “Assignment Provision”), as incorporated into the
Employment Agreement, dated as of February 13, 2020 (the “Employment Agreement”), between you and Match
Group, Inc. (“Old Match”), in connection with the merger (the “Old Match Merger”) of
Old Match with and into Valentine Merger Sub LLC (“New Match Merger Sub”), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp. Immediately following such Old Match Merger, IAC/InterActiveCorp was renamed Match Group, Inc.
(“New Match”).


 


The Assignment Provision states, in relevant
part, that in the event of a merger of Old Match with or into another entity, the Employment Agreement would be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the successor to Old Match, with such successor responsible for discharging and performing all the
promises, covenants, duties, and obligations of Old Match thereunder. Thus, when Old Match merged with and into New Match Merger
Sub, the latter became the successor to Old Match for purposes of the Assignment Provision.


 


By this letter, you, New Match Merger Sub
and New Match agree that New Match shall be substituted for New Match Merger Sub and treated as the successor to Old Match for
purposes of the Assignment Provision and that, from and after the effective time of the Old Match Merger, all references to the
 “Company” in the Employment Agreement shall be deemed to refer to New Match.


 


If you agree that this letter sets
forth our collective understanding as to New Match succeeding to the rights and obligations of Old Match and New Match Merger
Sub from and after the effective time of the Old Match Merger, please indicate your agreement by signing this letter where
indicated below.


 


[Signature Pages Follow]


 






     


     


    

 


	 	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	 	 	VALENTINE MERGER SUB LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Jared Sine
	 	 	By:  Jared Sine
	 	 	Its:  Chief Legal Officer & Secretary
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	MATCH GROUP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Jared Sine
	 	 	By:  Jared Sine
	 	 	Its:  Chief Legal Officer & Secretary
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s Sharmistha Dubey	 	 
	By: Sharmistha Dubey	 	 



 






    	 	2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Liban M. MOHAMUD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7658.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 2007.

Decided: March 27, 2007.

*265Sidney Leighton Moore, III, Troutman & Sanders, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, Office of the United States Attorney, Randolph John Bernard, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Liban M. Mohamud seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mohamud has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 4.7

 

NOVATION CERTIFICATE

 

To:          THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC as Agent 

 

From:               LLOYDS BANK PLC and CAIXABANK  S.A., UK BRANCH

 

Date 2] April 2019

 

Vodafone Group Ple — U.S.$ 3,935,000,000  (as increased to U.S.$ 4,090,000,000) Revolving Credit Agreement dated 27 February 2015 March 2014 (as amended from and/restated from time to time)

 

We refer to Clause 27.4 (Procedure for novations).

 

I.            We, Lloyds Bank Pie (the “Existing Lender”) and CaixaBank S.A., UK Branch (the “New Lender”) agree to the Existing Lender and the New Lender novating all the Existing Lender’s rights and obligations  referred to in the Schedule in accordance with Clause 27.4 (Procedure for novations).

 

2.            The specified date for the purposes of Clause 27.4(c) (Procedure for novations) is £7April 2019.

 

3.            The Facility Office and address for notices of the New Lender for the purposes of Clause 33.2 (Addresses for notices) are set out in the Schedule.

 

4.            The New Lender confirms that it has given notice to Vodafone of the entry into of this Novation Certificate and has obtained Vodafone’s consent in accordance with Clause 27.2(c)(ii) (Transfers by Lenders).

 

5.            This Novation  Certificate  and any non-contractual  obligations arising out of or  in connection with it are governed by English law.

 











 

THE SCHEDULE

 

Rights and obligations to be novated

 

	
FACILTY
    	
 
    	
COMMITMENT
    	
 
    
	
Revolving Facility
    	
 
    	
U.S.$
    	
77,500,000
    	
 
    
					


 

New Lender Details

 

Facility Office address: CaixaBank S.A., UK Branch, 8” Floor, 63 St Mary’s Axe, London, EC3A 8AA 

 

Fax number: +44 (0) 207 621  9777

 

Attention details for notices:

 

(i) Administration Matters

 

lndividual(s):   Daniel Batista/Marcus Dews

 

Telephone No:   +44(0)207398160

 

Emails addresses: buzon.uafe@caixabank.com, dabatista@caixabank.com, mdews@icaixabank.com), iosejavier.ruiz@gdscusa.es

 

(ii) Credit Matters 

 

lndividual(s):   Sergi Periago

 

Telephone No:   +44 (0) 2073980157  / +44 (0) 2073980143

 

Emails addresses:  buzon.uafe@caixabank.com, speriago@aiabank,com,

 

 

LLOYDS BANK PLC as Existing Lender

 

».      4Q4n

 

Date:

 

CAIXABANK S.A.,  UK BRANCH as New  Lender

 

	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	

    	
 
    	

    
	
By:
    	
Daniel Batista
    	
 
    	
Zacharioudakis
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 











 

	
THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND  PLC as Agent
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	

    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Dae.
    	
27//0
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 22, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

HENRY LEE GRIFFIN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. STEVE SMITH, in his individual and official capacity; CORRECTIONS CABLE TV CORP.; RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. No. 14-1149 (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-03015-LTB) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before GORSUCH , MURPHY , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges. Henry Griffin, a Colorado prisoner, filed this suit alleging that prison canteen officials violated his constitutional rights and federal antitrust laws by selling televisions to inmates like himself at prices too high and with too few channels. He also contended that his rights were violated because prisoners in

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.other state prisons enjoy better access to pizza deliveries, double mattresses, and “mature . . . movies.” In a nine-page order the district court explained that these and Mr. Griffin’s related complaints fail to state a claim and dismissed his case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. We see no error in the district court’s disposition and adopt the district court’s reasoning as our own. Neither may we reverse on the basis of the new arguments Mr. Griffin advances for the first time on appeal. Mr. Griffin’s in forma pauperis motion is denied and this appeal is dismissed. The district court’s dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act and this appeal counts as a second. See Jennings v. Natrona Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility , 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Standifird , 400 F. App’x 369, 371 (10th Cir. 2010).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges

WILLIAM T. BOWLING/ TED BOWLING CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0178-04-2 PER CURIAM JUNE 1, 2004 JOSHUA CREEL

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (William T. Bowling, pro se , on brief). (William C. Carr, Jr.; Emroch & Kilduff, LLP, on brief), for appellee.

William T. Bowling/Ted Bowling Constructi on (“employer”) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commi ssion finding that employer faile d to sustain its burden of proving that it did not have three or more employees regularly in service and was, therefore, not subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingl y, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Creel v. Bowling/Ted Bowling Construction , VWC File No. 211-36-95 (Dec. 22, 2003). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the de cisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 1

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Because we summarily affirm the comm ission’s decision, we will not address the arguments raised by Creel with respect to employe r’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 5A:25.