alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |
| Filed by the Registrant:                    |   | X |
|                                        |   |   |
| Filed by a Party other than the Registrant: |   | ____ |
|                                        |   |   |
| Check the appropriate box:                  |   |   |

|         |
|---------|
|         |  |  |
| _______ |    | Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|    |   |
| _______ |    | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
| _______ |   |
| _______ |    | Definitive Proxy Statement |
|    |   |
| X       |    | Definitive Additional Materials |
|    |   |
| _______ |    | Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | Navistar International Corporation |
|   |   |
|   | (Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) |
|   |   |
|   | (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) |

|         |
|---------|
|         |  |  |
| X       |    |   |
| _______ |    | No fee required. |
|    |    |   |
| _______ |    | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
|    |   |
|    |    | (1)    Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|    |    | (2)    Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|    |    | (3)    Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|    |    | (4)    Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|    |    | (5)    Total fee paid: |
|    |   |   |
| _______ |    | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
|    |   |
| _______ |    | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
|    |   |
|    |    | (1)    Amount Previously Paid: |
|    |    | (2)    Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
|    |    | (3)    Filing Party: |
|    |    | (4)    Date Filed: |

----

----

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARIANNE H. ENGLE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-5134

)

HENRY CHARLES MORRILL, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed November 7, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas

County; Thane B. Covert, Judge.

Marianne H. Engle, pro se.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### BOWNE et al. v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

Action by Caroline Bowne and others against the Manhattan Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.
§ 93.54 Reallocations by formula. ( a ) HUD will reallocate under this section: ( 1 ) Any HTF funds available for reallocation because HUD reduced or recaptured funds from an HTF grantee under § 93.400(d) for failure to commit or expend the funds within the time specified, or under § 93.453 for failure to comply substantially with any provision of this part;
( 2 ) Any HTF funds reduced for failure by the grantee to obtain funds required to be reimbursed or returned under § 93.450; and
( 3 ) Any HTF funds remitted to HUD under § 93.403(b)(4) when a grantee ceases to be an HTF grantee for any reason.
( b ) Any reallocation of funds must be made only among all participating States, except those States from which the funds were recaptured or reduced.
( c ) Any amounts that become available for reallocation shall be added to amounts for formula allocation in the succeeding fiscal year.
================================================================================

                    EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications


The undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NexxNow, Inc.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to NexxNow, Inc. and will be retained by NexxNow, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

September 18, 2009

                                     /s/ Gary Berthold
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Gary Berthold, Chief Executive Officer


                                     /s/ Jan Kaplan
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Jan Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer





================================================================================
#### In the Matter of Sam De Cesare, Respondent, against David H. Fisher, as Presiding Officer of the Liberal Party, et al., Appellants.

Respondents-appellants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court declaring invalid a petition filed on their behalf by the Liberal Party of Sebeneetady County designating them as Liberal Party candidates for office. At a meeting on April 16, 1960 the Executive Committee of the County Committee of the Liberal Party authorized the designation. At that time the committee was not a legally constituted committee because it did not have two members elected from each election district. *(Matter of Newman*v. *Millspaugh,*9 A D 2d 715> affd. 7 N Y 2d 756.) An amendment to section 12 of the Election Law, effective April 21, 1960 (L. 1960, ch. 701) provided that if 25% of the committeemen required to be elected “ have been elected” the County Committee shall be legally constituted. Thereafter the presiding officer and secretary of the committee executed the petition here questioned and it was filed on May 3, 1960. At the time the petition was executed and filed the County Committee was a legally constituted committee. We think the Legislature intended to recognize existing Liberal Party committees which met the 25% rule when it passed the amendment and, construing the Election Law liberally, a petition executed and filed after the effective date of the amendment by officers of a legally constituted committee is valid.. Order reversed, without costs, and the designation of respondents as Liberal Party candidates for their respective offices is reinstated. Bergan, P. J., Coon and Gibson, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., dissents, and votes to affirm, on the memorandum of the Special Term. [23 Misc 2d 115.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001022356
<NAME> ANKER COAL GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,661
<PP&E>                                         192,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,963
<BONDS>                                        142,025
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,105
<PREFERRED>                                     23,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,571
<SALES>                                        226,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,111
<CGS>                                          219,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (821)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,054)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,015)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,039)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANCISCO ALEJANDRO CARRILLO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50538

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04786-JAH-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 12, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Carrillo appeals his conviction for importing 59.6 kilograms of

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We affirm.

FILED

FEB 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Carrillo argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a

public trial by excluding his sister, Monica Lopez, and baby nephew from trial

after she testified for the defense. However, a defendant can forfeit a Sixth

Amendment claim by not promptly objecting or requesting that the individuals be

allowed to stay. United States v. Rivera, 682 F.3d 1223, 1232-34 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Carrillo raised no objection when the district judge excluded Lopez and the infant

from the courtroom. Carrillo forfeited his claim by not promptly objecting or

asking that Lopez and her baby be allowed to stay. By the time, later in the day,

that Carrillo objected to the exclusion order, an order the district court modified in

response to the objection, Lopez had already left.

Carrillo also claims that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a

mechanic to testify as an expert about the effect of the drug-filled containers

hidden in the tires on the truck’s performance. This claim fails because although

foundation for the mechanic’s opinions was arguable, foundation was not so

lacking as to make admission of the testimony an abuse of discretion. He had 36

years of experience as a mechanic, mounting and balancing tires and diagnosing

and repairing tire and balance problems with cars and Dodge Ram trucks. 

Furthermore, the witness had personally inspected Carrillo’s truck and the drug

containers. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Carrillo’s
3

objections went to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. See United

States v. Garcia, 7 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00816-CV

Style: Curocom Energy LLC and Curo Holdings Co. Ltd

v Woong Soon Eem and Jason Kim

Date motion filed*: December 5, 2014

Type of motion: Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal

Party filing motion:

Woolim Resources Development Company Ltd., Woolim Energy Holdings, LLC and 

Woolim Construction Company, Ltd.

After considering the motion and the response, the court GRANTS the motion for an extension of time to file a 

notice of appeal, filed by Woolim Resources Development Company Ltd., Woolim Energy Holdings, LLC and 

Woolim Construction Company, Ltd, to the date of its filing.

Judge’s Signature: /s/ Justice Jane Bland

Acting Individually

Date: January 7, 2015
§ 285.402 What is the effect of a cessation order? ( a ) Upon receiving a cessation order, you must cease all activities on your lease or grant, as specified in the order. BSEE may authorize certain activities during the period of the cessation order.
( b ) A cessation order will last for the period specified in the order or as otherwise specified by BSEE. If BSEE determines that the circumstances giving rise to the cessation order cannot be resolved within a reasonable time period, the Secretary may initiate cancellation of your lease or grant, as provided in § 285.437.
( c ) A cessation order does not extend the term of your lease or grant for the period you are prohibited from conducting activities.
( d ) You must continue to make all required payments on your lease or grant during the period a cessation order is in effect.
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2004-37 (the "Trust")

I, Millie
Cicero, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 30, 2005, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/MILLIE CICERO
      Name:  Millie
      CiceroTitle:    Assistant Treasurer |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 30, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.828 Design, installation, and operation of SSSVs—subsea trees. You must design, install, and operate (including repair, maintain, and test) an SSSV to ensure its reliable operation. ( a ) You must install the SSSV at a depth at least 100 feet below the mudline. When warranted by conditions, such as unstable bottom conditions, permafrost, hydrate formation, or paraffin problems, the District Manager may approve an alternate setting depth on a case-by-case basis.
( b ) The well must not be open to flow while an SSSV is inoperable, unless specifically approved by the District Manager in an APM.
( c ) You must design, install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test all SSSVs in accordance with your Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP) and ANSI/API RP 14B (incorporated by reference in § 250.198). For additional SSSV testing requirements, refer to § 250.880.
[81 FR 60918, Sept. 7, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 49257, Sept. 28, 2018]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3538 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3538

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating certain lands along the southern coast of 
          Maui, Hawaii, as a unit of the National Park System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

   Mr. Case introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating certain lands along the southern coast of 
          Maui, Hawaii, as a unit of the National Park System.

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

SECTION 1. SOUTH MAUI COASTAL STUDY.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``South Maui Coastal 
Preservation Act of 2005''.
    (b) Study.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
        complete a study to determine the suitability and feasibility 
        of designating certain lands located on the southern coast of 
        Maui, Hawaii, as a National Seashore, National Recreation Area, 
        National Monument, National Preserve, or other unit of the 
        National Park System.
            (2) Study area.--The study area shall extend generally from 
        and including the Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve to Kanaloa 
        Point.
            (3) Applicability of other law.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
        section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)(2) and 
        (3); commonly known as the National Park System General 
        Authorities Act) shall apply to the study.
            (4) Consultation.--The study shall include an assessment of 
        the possibility of transferring some or all of the State lands 
        in the study area to the Federal Government based on 
        consultations with the State of Hawaii.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after funds are made 
available for this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
transmit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 
report containing the conclusions of the study required by subsection 
(b).
                                 <all>
```
### §15903. Enforcement by the Attorney General

(a) On Behalf of Board.—The Attorney General may, and on request of the Board shall, bring court proceedings to enforce this part or a regulation or order of the Board and to prosecute a person violating this part or a regulation or order of the Board issued under this part.

(b) On Behalf of Others.—The United States Government may bring a civil action on behalf of a person to compel a pipeline carrier providing transportation or service subject to this part to provide that transportation or service to that person in compliance with this part at the same rate charged, or on conditions as favorable as those given by the carrier, for like traffic under similar conditions to another person.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §106(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 927.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11703 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
### §1395. Tax laws continued; tax on sugar

Until Congress shall otherwise provide all laws now imposing taxes in the said West Indian Islands, including the customs laws and regulations, shall, insofar as compatible with the changed sovereignty and not otherwise herein provided, continue in force and effect, except that articles the growth, product, or manufacture of the United States shall be admitted there free of duty: Provided, That upon exportation of sugar to any foreign country, or the shipment thereof to the United States or any of its possessions, there shall be levied, collected, and paid thereon an export duty of $6 per ton of two thousand pounds, irrespective of polariscope test, in lieu of any export tax now required by law: Provided further, That the internal revenue taxes levied by the Colonial Council of Saint Croix, or by the Colonial Council of Saint Thomas and Saint John, in pursuance of the authority granted by this section and sections 1391,1 1392, 1394, and 1396 of this title on articles, goods, wares, or merchandise may be levied and collected as the Colonial Council of Saint Croix, or as the Colonial Council of Saint Thomas and Saint John, may direct, on the articles subject to said tax, as soon as the same are manufactured, sold, used, or brought into the island: And provided further, That no discrimination be made between the articles imported from the United States or foreign countries and similar articles produced or manufactured in the municipality of Saint Croix, or in the municipality of Saint Thomas and Saint John, respectively. The officials of the Customs and Postal Services of the United States are directed to assist the appropriate officials of the municipality of Saint Croix, or of the municipality of Saint Thomas and Saint John, in the collection of these taxes.

(Mar. 3, 1917, ch. 171, §4, 39 Stat. 1133; Feb. 25, 1927, ch. 192, §5, 44 Stat. 1235; June 24, 1932, ch. 275, 47 Stat. 333.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1391 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 643.

#### Amendments

1932—Act June 24, 1932, inserted provisos permitting local levy of internal revenue taxes, prohibiting discrimination against imports, and directing customs and postal services to assist in collecting taxes.

1927—Act Feb. 25, 1927, reduced export duty on sugar from $8 to $6 per ton.

1 See References in Text note below.
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries



|                                                     |  |                                                            
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Entity                                       |  | State or Other Jurisdictionof Incorporation or Organization
|DreamWorks Animation L.L.C.                          |  | Delaware                                                   
|DreamWorks Inc.                                      |  | Delaware                                                   
|DreamWorks Post-Production L.L.C.                    |  | Delaware                                                   
|DreamWorks Animation Home Entertainment, L.L.C.      |  | Delaware                                                   
|DreamWorks Animation Home Entertainment, Inc.        |  | Delaware                                                   
|DreamWorks Animation Live Theatrical Productions LLC |  | Delaware                                                   
|Pacific Data Images, Inc.                            |  | California                                                 
|Pacific Data Images L.L.C.                           |  | Delaware                                                   
|DreamWorks Animation International Services, Inc.    |  | Delaware                                                   
|DWA Finance I L.L.C.                                 |  | Delaware                                                   
|Pacific Productions L.L.C.                           |  | Delaware                                                   
|Portkey Limited                                      |  | Ireland                                                    
|DW Animation Studios India Private Limited           |  | India