alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Holding North America Corporation, and Infineon Technologies Richmond LP, Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, v. MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee, v. Micron Technology, Inc., Movant-Appellant, and Promos Technologies, Inc., Movant.

No. 2007-1085.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 5, 2007.

*ORDER*

The court treats Micron Technology, Inc.’s “notice of mootness” as a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2841 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2841

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to defer recognition of gain 
  on the sale or exchange of livestock on account of a Presidentially 
                           declared disaster.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 3, 1993

Mr. Johnson of South Dakota (for himself and Mr. Minge) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to defer recognition of gain 
  on the sale or exchange of livestock on account of a Presidentially 
                           declared disaster.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFERRAL OF GAIN ON SALES AND EXCHANGES OF LIVESTOCK ON 
              ACCOUNT OF PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTERS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 1033 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to livestock sold on account of drought) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting before the period ``or any disaster 
        resulting in a determination by the President that an area 
        warrants assistance from the Federal Government under the 
        Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
        Act'', and
            (2) by inserting ``or Presidentially declared Disasters'' 
        after ``Drought'' in the heading.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to disasters declared after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 27, 2015

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

AWARDS PRINT AND MAIL HANDLING CONTRACT

Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 

Board (FRTIB) announced today that it has awarded its print and 

mail handling contract TIB-2015-D-0001 to Broadridge Financial

Solutions. Broadridge Financial Solutions will be responsible 

for sending Agency correspondence and documents to Thrift 

Savings Plan (TSP) participants and beneficiaries. 

The print and mail handling contract performance period 

comprised of a nineteen (19) month base period and three 1-year 

option periods. The total potential contract value, if all 

options are exercised, is $22,136,887. The total period of 

performance will be March 1, 2015 to September 30, 2019.

The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal employees; it is similar to 

the 401(k) plans offered by many private employers. As of January 2015, TSP 

assets totaled approximately $436.8 billion, and retirement savings accounts 

were being maintained for 4.7 million TSP participants. Participants include 

Federal civilian employees in all branches of Government, employees of the 

U.S. Postal Service, and members of the uniformed services. Additional 

information can be found at www.tsp.gov. 

MEDIA CONTACT:

Kim Weaver 

202-942-1641

(end)
Argentina - Eligible Plants Certified to Export Meat to the United States

March 3, 2024

EstForgnNBR Establishment Name Date Listed Date Delisted Date Relisted

 13 Swift Argentina SA 11/04/2015

89 Mattievich S.A. 11/24/2021

189 S.A. Importadora Y Exportadora De La Patagonia 04/01/2005

249 Friar S.A. 02/06/2004 

1014 Quickfood S.A. 09/11/2019

1113 Quickfood (Formerly Marfrig Argentina Sociedad Anónima) 01/01/2002

1352 Santa Giulia S.A. 10/19/2021

1373 Swift Argentina S. A. 10/02/2020

1399 Rafaela Alimentos S.A 11/22/2022 

1918 Ecocarnes S.A. 10/02/2020 02/09/2024

1920 Frigorifico Rioplatense SAICIF 01/01/2002 

1970 Frigorifico Regional Industrias Alimenticias Reconquista S.A. (Formerly Friar S.A.) 03/01/2004

2025 Frigorifico Gorina SAIC 01/01/2002

2035 Black Bamboo Enterprises S.A. 11/02/2023

2062 Compañía Bernal S.A. 12/10/2020 

* 2082 Arre Beef SA 01/01/2002 02/09/2024 03/03/2024

2090 Bustos y Beltran S.A. 12/20/2022

2520 Sociedad Anonima Carnes Pampeanas S.A. 04/15/2014 

2531 Frigorífico General Pico S.A. 12/21/2021

2595 Frigorífico Alberdi S.A. 09/11/2019

2792 Frigorifico General Pico S.A. 10/19/2021

3270 Frimsa S.A. 10/19/2021

3540 Cina S.R.L. (Cold Storage) 12/28/2022 

3648 Frigorífico Maneca S.A. 12/21/2021

3676 Frigolar S.A. 07/26/2023 

4069 Logros S.A. 09/11/2019

4325 Frio Dock S.A. (Cold Storage) 10/02/2020

4555 S.A. Importadora Y Exportadora De La Patagonia 05/11/2016

4595 Inland Transportes S.A. (Cold Storage) 12/27/2023

4635 Patagonia Meat S.A. 12/03/2021

4704 M. Dodero Compañía General De Servicios S.A. (Cold Storage) 10/02/2020

4720 Frigorífico Forres-Beltrán S.A. 05/10/2021

5039 Azul Natural Beef S.A. 09/11/2019

5400 Nestor Tomasello S.R.L. 11/02/2023

* Relisted Establishment

Updated items marked with an asterisk (*)

Page 1 of 1
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ) Under Contract No. N00030-07-C-0002 etal. ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59584

Andrew E. Shipley, Esq. Seth H. Locke, Esq.

Perkins Coie Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed withprejudice. Dated: 17 May 2016

Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59584, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rodney E. Schwatken, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
 Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 18, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Rodney E. Schwatken
|                      |  |  |  | Rodney E. Schwatken    
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard
contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Quinton F. CROOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FULLEN, K9 Unit, Defendant-Appellee, and Warden Sam Young, Defendant.

No. 10-7410.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 27, 2011.

Quinton F. Croom, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Quinton F. Croom appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Croom v. Fullen,*No. 7:09-cv-00399-jlk-mfu, 2010 WL 3783435 (W.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

215 KAH 12-00747 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. ALAN DALE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
DAVID STALLONE, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

ALAN DALE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered November 2, 2011 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21



                             COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


This Compensation Agreement ("Agreement") between Richard F. Woodruff, Jr. and
Kontron Mobile Computing ("KMC"), Eden Prairie, MN 55344, takes effect upon the
termination of Mr. Woodruff for any reason, excluding voluntary resignation
unless such voluntary resignation is at the request of KMC. This agreement has
an effective date of October 25, 2001.

In return for consultative services (as agreed to at a later date by the parties
to this Agreement) to be performed by Mr. Woodruff for a period of up to six
months following his termination from KMC, he shall be compensated as follows:

1.   A lump sum payment of 26 weeks salary;

2.   A lump sum payment equal to 50% of the total incentive compensation paid to
     Mr. Woodruff during the prior four quarters;

3.   Continued participation in KMC's health and dental insurance plans for
     twelve months. This participation shall be on the same terms as if Mr.
     Woodruff was still employed by KMC (Mr. Woodruff pays the employee share of
     the premiums and KMC pays the employer's share as if Mr. Woodruff was a
     full-time employee) and after twelve months, COBRA coverage will apply for
     an additional six months;

4.   KMC may terminate this Agreement immediately, by written notice to Mr.
     Woodruff, on "Good Cause." For purposes of this Agreement, "Good Cause"
     shall mean:

     (i)  neglect or misconduct by Mr. Woodruff in connection with any of his
          duties, or the repeated failure to carry out lawful and reasonable
          orders of KMC, which in any of these cases, in the reasonable judgment
          of the Board, is willful and deliberate and which is not cured within
          a reasonable period after Mr. Woodruff's receipt of written notice
          thereof from KMC, unless such neglect, misconduct or failure is not of
          the type that reasonably may be cured;

     (ii) any absence from Mr. Woodruff's regular, full-time employment in
          excess of three weeks that is not due to vacation, bona fide illness,
          disability, death or other reason expressly authorized by the Board

5.   This Agreement shall terminate immediately on Mr. Woodruff's death, or in
     the event of Mr. Woodruff's continuous disability, which disability
     prevents him from substantially performing his duties, one year from the
     commencement of such disability;

6.   This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement of Mr.
     Woodruff and KMC.


Agreed to:


Kontron Mobile Computing



/s/ Thomas Sparrvik                     /s/ Richard F. Woodruff, Jr.
--------------------------------        --------------------------------------
Thomas Sparrvik, CEO                    Richard F. Woodruff, Jr.


October 26, 2001                        October 26, 2001
--------------------------------        --------------------------------------
Date                                    Date
Exhibit 10.76

AMENDMENT TO THE 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN FOR KEY EMPLOYEES OF  LAUREATE EDUCATION, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

This Amendment to the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees of Laureate Education, Inc. and its Subsidiaries (this
"Amendment"), effective as of January 30, 2017, is made and entered into by Laureate Education, Inc., a Delaware public corporation (the
"Company"). Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such
terms in the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees of Laureate Education, Inc. and its Subsidiaries (the "Plan").

RECITALS

WHEREAS,
on October 2, 2007 the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") approved the Plan, which Plan also has been approved by the Company's
stockholders;

WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Plan, the Board may amend, suspend or terminate the Plan, except as otherwise provided in the Plan;

WHEREAS,
the fourth sentence of Section 5(a) of the Plan states: "In addition to other restrictions contained in the Plan, a Stock Option granted under this Section 5(a)
may not be exercised more than 10 years after the date it is granted."; and

WHEREAS,
the Board desires to amend the Plan, to permit the Board to authorize the exercise of one or more stock options more than 10 years after the date such stock option was
granted; and

NOW,
THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 10(b) of the Plan, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows:



[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank Signature Page Follows]

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.



LAUREATE EDUCATION, INC.By:

/s/ ROBERT W. ZENTZName:

Robert W. ZentzTitle:

SVP, General Counsel & Secretary


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                             STATE OF
        NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                 ORGANIZATION
        ------------------                                 ------------

    Baseline, Inc.                                            Delaware

    Broadway.com, Inc.                                        Delaware

    Fedora, Inc.                                              Iowa

    hollywood.com, Inc.                                       California

    Hollywood.com International, Inc.                         Delaware

    Hollywood.fr SARL                                         France

    Hollywood Wrestling Venture LLC                           Delaware

    Hollywood Services, Inc.                                  Delaware

    Independent Hollywood, Inc.                               Delaware

    NetCo Partners (1)

    Showtimes.com, Inc.                                       Delaware

    Tekno Books (2)

    Tekno Books International, LLC                            Wisconsin

    Tekno Comix, Inc.                                         Florida

    Theatre Direct NY, Inc.                                   New York

    -----------------
    (1)    NetCo Partners is a general partnership formed under
           the laws of the State of New York in which Hollywood
           Media has a 50% partnership interest.

    (2)    Tekno Books is a general partnership formed under the
           laws of the State of Wisconsin in which Hollywood Media
           has a 51% ownership interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,182
<PP&E>                                         942,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 891,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,610
<BONDS>                                        418,343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<COMMON>                                           207
<OTHER-SE>                                     427,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   891,921
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,168
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,342
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,398
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  8,472
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,899
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.71


</TABLE>
#### Sabino SILVA-VENTURA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-77030.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Marina Pineda-Kamariotis, Esq., Law Office of Marina Pineda-Kamariotis, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Stacy S. Paddack, Jennifer Paisner, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sabino Silva-Ventura, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *see Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th *662Cir.2002), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *see Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Silva-Ventura submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See Singh,*295 F.3d at 1039 (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”). Silva-Ventura’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by not addressing in its decision all the evidence presented is unavailing. *See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Silva-Ventura’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen violated due process fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, a petitioner must show error).

Silva-Ventura’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jameel CASEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41237

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 8, 2007.

Shamoil Shipchandler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

F. Clinton Broden, Broden & Mickelsen, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Without the benefit of a plea agreement, Jameel Casey pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud and related activity in connection with computers. Casey was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and to a three-year term of supervised release. Casey challenges the district court’s loss determination. Specifically, he contends that the loss determination should have been based on the “actual” loss to the lending institutions instead of the “intended” loss.

The amount of loss is a factual finding reviewed for clear error; the method by which losses are determined is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Deavours,*219 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir.2000). Due to his fraudulent actions, Casey helped customers obtain loans that they would not otherwise have qualified. Casey had no control over repaying the loans if the customers defaulted. Consequently, due to his fraudulent actions, Casey put the lending institutions at risk for the full line of credit extended to the consumers. Thus, the district court did not err in assessing Casey’s offense level based on the intended loss, rather than the actual loss, figure of the full line of credit extended by the lending *390institutions to the consumers. *See United States v. Morrow,*177 F.3d 272, 301 (5th Cir.1999); *United States v. Tedder,*81 F.3d 549, 551 (5th Cir.1996). Thus, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.