alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

         Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): May 14, 2002

                           MSDW Structured Asset Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

          Delaware                       333-64879              13-4026700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction         (Commission File          (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)                   Number)           Identification No.)

1585 Broadway, New York, New York                                  10036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                         (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520

                                 Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)




<PAGE>


Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1 Trust Agreement



<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: May 16, 2002

                                        MSDW STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
                                        (Registrant)


                                        By:    /s/ John Kehoe
                                               ------------------------
                                        Name:  John Kehoe
                                        Title: Vice President


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit 4.1  Trust Agreement
Exhibit 32.01

Exhibit 32.01 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Joseph Lively, Chief Executive Officer of VINOBLE, INC (the "Registrant"), do
hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

     (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m);

          and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

Date: February 22, 2005

/s/ Joseph Lively
-----------------

Joseph Lively
Chief Executive Officer
No. 7924.

#### Johns, Admx., *v.*The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

(Decided September 29, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. J ohn 0.*Winship, for plaintiff in error.

*533
      *Mr. E. A. Foote,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Speak, Davis,- Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
§ 179.2 Applicability and scope. ( a ) This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies and the Department Field Activities, and any other Department organizational entity or instrumentality established to perform a government function (hereafter referred to collectively as the “Components”).
( b ) The rule in this part shall be applied at all locations: ( 1 ) That are, or were, owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed or used by the Department, and
( 2 ) That are known to, or suspected of, containing unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions (DMM), or munitions constituents (MC), and
( 3 ) That are included in the inventory established pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2710(a).
( c ) The rule in this part shall not be applied at the locations not included in the inventory required under 10 U.S.C. 2710(a). The locations not included in the inventory are: ( 1 ) Locations that are not, or were not, owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed or used by the Department,
( 2 ) Locations neither known to contain, or suspected of containing, UXO, DMM, or MC,
( 3 ) Locations outside the United States,
( 4 ) Locations where the presence of military munitions results from combat operations,
( 5 ) Currently operating military munitions storage and manufacturing facilities,
( 6 ) Locations that are used for, or were permitted for, the treatment or disposal of military munitions, and
( 7 ) Operational ranges.
### §6132. Prohibition of coercion

(a) An employee may not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other employee for the purpose of interfering with—

(1) such employee's rights under sections 6122 through 6126 of this title to elect a time of arrival or departure, to work or not to work credit hours, or to request or not to request compensatory time off in lieu of payment for overtime hours; or

(2) such employee's right under section 6127(b)(1) of this title to vote whether or not to be included within a compressed schedule program or such employee's right to request an agency determination under section 6127(b)(2) of this title.

(b) For the purpose of subsection (a), the term "intimidate, threaten, or coerce" includes, but is not limited to, promising to confer or conferring any benefit (such as appointment, promotion, or compensation), or effecting or threatening to effect any reprisal (such as deprivation of appointment, promotion, or compensation).

(Added Pub. L. 97–221, §2(a)(2), July 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 232.)
### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT JACKSON

Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Marc h 0 5, 2 01 4

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . JI MMY GRIFFI N, JR.

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f

o r M a d i s o n C o u n t y
N o

. 1 3 2 3 D o n a l d H

. A l l e n , J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 1 3

- 0 1 7 7 4

- C C A

- R 3

- C D

- F i l e d M a y 2 0

, 2 0 1 4

T H O M A S T

. W O O D A LL
, J

. , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t

.

I r e s p e c t f

u l l y d i s s e n t f

r o m t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n w h i c h s e t s a s i d e t h e

o r d e r o f r e s t i t u t i o n a n d r e m a n d s f o r a n o t h e r h e a r i n g

. I d i s a g r e e t h a t t h i s i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e

c a s e t o o b s e r v e “ p l a i n e r r o r ” a n d w o u l d a c c o r d i n g l y a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T H O M A S T

. W O O D A L L

, J U D G E
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6651

HERMAN L. MOODY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-00-529-3)

Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman L. Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman L. Moody seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Moody v. Angelone, No. CA-00-

529-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2001). 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
#### § 1630.2 Classes.

Each registrant shall be classified in one of the classes prescribed in this part.
#### In the Matter of Joseph E. Lombardi, Appellant, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

Order entered June 5, 1963 *denying*petitioner’s application for an order requiring respondents to correct an alleged error in his enrollment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .Petitioner fails to establish satisfactorily that he enrolled as a Republican by mistake. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
(October 24, 1963)

#### In the Matter of Widder Bros. Inc., Appellant, v. Jack B. Kaffee et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on August 8, 1963, denying judgmentereditor-appellant’s motion for installment payments, punishment of judgment debtors for contempt, and for discretionary allowance of fixed sum for expenses of enforcement of judgment, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of ordering each judgment debtor to make installment payments to judgment creditor of $50 per week to be in addition to amounts received by judgment-creditor-appellant under income garnishment or execution, and $250 as discretionary allowance on enforcement motion, and is otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements of the appeal to judgment-creditor-appellant. Installment payments may be ordered when it appears that the judgment debtor is receiving or will receive income from any source, taking into consideration the reasonable requirements of the judgment debtor and his dependents (CPLR, § 5226; Civ. Prac. Act, § 793). In addition to their $400 earnings per week, each judgment debtor enjoys other emoluments from the corporations they apparently dominate. In addition, some of the living expense figures they submitted in opposition to the motion are. evidently inflated. Consequently, on the basis of this record, each judgment debtor should pay $90 per week in satisfaction of the approximately $12,000 remaining unpaid on the judgment. Apparently $40 per week are being paid under income execution by each of the three judgment debtors (cf. CPLR, § 5231; Civ. ,Prae. Act, § 684). Therefore, installment payments of $50 per week per judgment debtor are warranted. Judgment-creditor-appellant also moved *818to punish the judgment debtors for contempt for alleged violations of provisions of examination subprenas restraining transfer of' judgment debtors’ property (CPLR, §§ 5222, 5251; Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 781, 801). .It claimed that the spending of earnings violated the restraint imposed. The motion must fail because the personal earnings of judgment debtors are exempt except such part as a court determines to be unnecessary for the reasonable requirements of the judgment debtor and his dependents ('CPLR, § 5205, subd. [e]; Civ. Prae. Act, § 792, subd. [e]). Since the judgment creditor has incurred added expenses relating to this enforcement motion, partial reimbursement in the amount of $250 is warranted under the circumstances (see CPLR, § 8303, subd. [b]; Civ. Prae. Act, § 803, subd. [1]). Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, J J.
#### Liliane Unanue, Appellant, v Ira Leon Rennert et al., Respondents.

[831 NYS2d 904]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J., upon decision of Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered on or about September 29, 2005, which, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of defendants-respondents.

*290No appeal as of right lies from a sua sponte order *(Sholes v Meagher,*100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). If the matter is to he reviewed, plaintiff should move to vacate the sua sponte order *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [3]) so as to create a suitable appellate record and afford counsel the opportunity to be heard on the issues *(see Davidson v Regan Fund Mgt. Ltd.,*15 AD3d 172 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED PER SHARE EARNINGS
(Dollar amounts in thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Years Ended December 31,
                                                   --------------------------------
                                                     1997        1996         1995
                                                   --------    -------     --------
<S>                                                <C>         <C>         <C>
Net earnings per common share
Weighted average shares outstanding                 11,506      7,942         7,007
Net effect of dilutive stock options and
  warrants based on the treasury stock method          156        304           164
                                                   -------     ------       -------
Weighted average shares and common stock
  equivalents                                       11,662      8,246         7,171
                                                   -------     ------        ------
Net earnings                                       $ 4,202     $  910        $2,314
Common stock dividend to preferred
  shareholders (1)                                      (3)        (3)           (3)
                                                   -------     ------        ------
Net earning to common shareholders                 $ 4,199     $  907        $2,311
                                                   =======     ======        ======
Diluted per share amount (2)                       $  0.36     $ 0.11        $ 0.32
                                                   =======     ======        ======
</TABLE>


(1)   In December 1997, 1996, and 1995, the Board of Directors approved a
      Common Stock dividend of 306 shares to the stockholders of record of
      Series A Convertible Preferred Stock as of December 15, 1997, 1996, and
      1995 that was paid January 1998, 1997, and 1996 respectively. The market
      value of the Common Stock distributed as of each period was approximately
      $3,000.

(2)   The assumed conversion of the preferred stock would have an immaterial
      effect (less than 1/10 of $.01) in all periods, and therefore that 
      calculation has been omitted.

(3)   All share and per share amounts have been restated to reflect a 
      one-for-five reverse split effected November 2, 1995.
### §101301. Maintenance management system

The Service shall implement a maintenance management system in the maintenance and operations programs of the System. The system shall include the following elements:

(1) A workload inventory of assets including detailed information that quantifies for all assets (including buildings, roads, utility systems, and grounds that must be maintained) the characteristics affecting the type of maintenance work performed.

(2) A set of maintenance tasks that describe the maintenance work in each System unit.

(3) A description of work standards including—

(A) frequency of maintenance;

(B) measurable quality standard to which assets should be maintained;

(C) methods for accomplishing work;

(D) required labor, equipment, and material resources; and

(E) expected worker production for each maintenance task.

(4) A work program and performance budget that develops an annual work plan identifying maintenance needs and financial resources to be devoted to each maintenance task.

(5) A work schedule that identifies and prioritizes tasks to be done in a specific time period and specifies required labor resources.

(6) Work orders specifying job authorizations and a record of work accomplished that can be used to record actual labor and material costs.

(7) Reports and special analyses that compare planned versus actual accomplishments and costs and that can be used to evaluate maintenance operations.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3123.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101301 | 16 U.S.C. 1a–8(a). | Pub. L. 98–540, §4(a), Oct. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 2719; Pub. L. 103–437, §6(d)(1), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4583. |

Section
§ 910.772 Requirements for coal exploration. ( a ) Part 772 of this chapter, *Requirements for Coal Exploration,* shall apply to any person who conducts or seeks to conduct coal exploration operations.
( b ) The Office shall make every effort to act on an exploration application within 60 days of receipt or such longer time as may be reasonable under the circumstances. If additional time is needed, OSMRE shall notify the applicant that the application is being reviewed, but that more time is necessary to complete such reviews, setting forth the reasons and the additional time that is needed.
[52 FR 13806, Apr. 24, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 4977, Feb. 19, 1988]
SERVED JUNE 7, 2010 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSMAN BLYTHE, 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SO0005 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0318 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER 

POSTPONING HEARING 

For good cause shown, the Complainant's motion to postpone the 

hearing, now scheduled to begin on July 1, 2010, is granted. 

The hearing is postponed to July 20, 2010. It will be held in 

Wilmington, NC. 

The deadline for the exchange of witness lists and proposed exhibits is 

also postponed. The new date for such exchanges is July 6, 2010. 

Any future motions for change in the hearing date must note that 

counsel has complied with the provisions of paragraph 6 of my prehearing 

orderofMay 14, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

;\T:O:-J 

Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative law Judge 
FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SO0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Josman Blythe, Respondent 

629 Starboard Road, N.W. 

Shallotte,NC 28470-1835 

Taneesha D. Marshall, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

- Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
**Exhibit21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIESOF HICKORY TECH CORPORATION**

 
| **Subsidiaries**                                    | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                                |       |                                    |
| Mankato Citizens  Telephone Company                 |       | Minnesota                               |
| Mid-Communications,  Inc.                           |       | Minnesota                               |
| Cable Network, Inc.                                 |       | Minnesota                               |
| Heartland  Telecommunications Company of Iowa, Inc. |       | Minnesota                               |
| Crystal Communications,  Inc.                       |       | Minnesota                               |
| National Independent  Billing, Inc.                 |       | Minnesota                               |
| Collins Communications  Systems Co.                 |       | Minnesota                               |
| Enventis Telecom, Inc.                              |       | Minnesota                               |

 

All such subsidiaries are100% owned by Hickory Tech Corporation. The financial statements of all suchsubsidiaries are included in the Consolidated Financial Statements of Hickory TechCorporation. Hickory Tech Corporation is incorporated in Minnesota.

 

1

----
### §307105. Attorney's fees and costs to prevailing parties in civil actions

In any civil action brought in any United States district court by any interested person to enforce this division, if the person substantially prevails in the action, the court may award attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of participating in the civil action, as the court considers reasonable.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3232.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 307105 | 16 U.S.C. 470w–4. | Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §305, as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3002. |

Section
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-02-14T10:29:13-0500
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office