alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 9 -1 8 59

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J u s t i n E. Ri d d l e; Eri n M . Ri d d l e
l l l l l ll l ll l l l l l l l l ll l Pl a i n t if

f s - Ap p el l an t s

v
. Ch art er W es tBan k , A Neb ras k a Co rp o rat i o n
l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l lDef

en da n t - Ap

p el l ee
Fed eral Res erv e Ban k , o f Kan s as Ci t y
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Def en d a n t

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t edSt at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e Di s t ri ct o f Neb ras k a - Om ah a

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sub m i t t ed : Decem

b er 5 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : Decem

b er 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re LOKEN, SHEPHERD, an dERICKSON, Ci rcu i t J ud g es
.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM

.Neb ras k a res i d en t s J u s t i n an d E ri n Ri d d l e ap p eal fo ll o wi n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s 1

ad v ers e g ran t o f s u m

m ary ju dg m en t i n t h ei r p ro s e ci v i l act i o n
. Fo r r e v e r s a l , t h ey ch al l en g e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s d i s m i s s al o f t h ei r cl ai m s eek i n g rel ief un d er t h e Fai r Cred i t Rep o rt i n g Act (FCRA). T h ey al s o arg u e t h at t h e d i s tri ct co u rt erred in g ran t i n g s u m

m ary ju d gm en t o n t h ei r cl ai m

fo r t o rt i o u s i n t erferen ce wi t h a b u s i n es s rel at i o n s h i p
.
Aft er carefu l rev i ew, we ag ree wi th t he di s t ri ct co urt t h at t h e Ri dd l es fai l ed to
s t at e a cl ai m u nd er t h e FCRA. See K el l y v
. Ci t y o f Om ah a, 8 1 3 F.3 d 1 0 7 0 , 10 7 5 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 6 ) (g ran to f Fed . R. Ci v . P. 1 2 (b )(6 ) m o t i o n i s rev i ewed d e n o v o ). Fu rt h er,
we co n cl u d e t h at su m

m ary ju d g m en t was p ro p er o n t h e to rt i o u s i n t erferen ce cl ai m
. See Tu si n g v
. Des M o in es In d ep
. Cmt y
. Sch

. Di s t ., 6 39 F.3 d 5 0 7 , 51 4 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 1 ) (s u m m ary ju d g m en t d eci s i o n is rev i ewed d e n o vo , vi ewi n g reco rd i n l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o n o n -m ov i n g p art y ); s ee al so Pet t i t v
. Pax to n , 5 8 3 N .W .2 d 60 4 , 6 0 9 -1 1 (Neb

. 1 9 98 ) (d i s cu s s i n g req u i rem en t s o f t o rt i ou s i nt erferen ce cl ai m u n d er Neb ras k a l aw). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 t h Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 Th e Ho n orab l e Jo h n M

. Gerrard , Ch i ef J u d g e, Un i ted St at es D i s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e Di s t ri cto f Neb ras k a. -2

-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6824 

JOHN EDWARD STONE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-04-21860-0)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edward Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., John

Eric Kaufmann, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, P.A., Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Edward Stone appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stone v. Ozmint,

No. CA-04-21860-0 (D.S.C. filed May 16, 2005 & entered May 17,

2005). 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
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
American Technical Ceramics Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-50913 and No. 333-76582) of American Technical Ceramics Corp.
of our report, dated September 27, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of American Technical Ceramics Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2005
and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows, for each of the years in
the three-year period ended June 30, 2005, which report appears in the 2005
Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Technical Ceramics Corp.

                                    /s/ KPMG, LLP

Melville, New York
October 4, 2005
```
#### In the Matter of Lonniel L.G., Respondent, v Tammy G.G., Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 843]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., A.J.), entered *1201June 15, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, found respondent to be in willful violation of a custody/visitation order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Family Court erred in finding respondent to be in willful violation of a custody/visitation order dated December 10, 2004 and in sentencing her to an intermittent term of incarceration of two weekends. The violation petition alleges that respondent violated a different order, dated February 24, 2006, and, in any event, the evidence does not establish that respondent willfully violated a clear mandate of either order *(see Matter of Johnson v Ahern,*29 AD3d 1101 [2006]; *Matter of Hoglund v Hoglund,*234 AD2d 794, 795-796 [1996]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 12.1****DUQUESNE LIGHT HOLDINGS AND SUBSIDIARIES****Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred and Preference Stock DividendRequirements**                            (Millions of Dollars)   Three Months Ended      March 31,  Year Ended December 31,  **2006    **  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  **Fixed Charges:**                         Interest on long-term debt **$****15.0**   $54.2  $55.2  $53.1  $55.3  $62.3 Other interest  **1.2**    1.1   2.0   12.3   13.3   25.6 Portion of lease payments representingan interest factor  **0.9**    3.1   3.9   4.9   3.2   3.1 Dividend requirement (a)  **2.0**    8.0   6.6   9.5   15.8   16.0                     Total Fixed Charges **$****19.1**   $66.4  $67.7  $79.8  $87.6  $107.0                                                     **Earnings:**                         Income (loss) from continuing operations **$****14.4**   $112.9  $87.2  $93.2  $26.7  $(44.5)Income taxes  **10.0**    53.0   20.6   17.7   (11.6)  (77.4)Fixed charges as above  **19.1**    66.4   67.7   79.8   87.6   107.0                     Total Earnings **$****43.5**   $232.3  $175.5  $190.7  $102.7  $(14.9)                                                    **Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Chargesand Preferred and Preference**                         **Stock Dividend Requirements**  **2.28**    3.50   2.59   2.39   1.17   (0.14) (b)                    (a) Includes annual dividend requirements of $12.6 million for the Monthly Income PreferredSecurities (MIPS) per year for 2002 and prior. For 2003, only $6.3 million is included forthe period January 1 – June 30. From July 1, 2003 until their redemption in 2004, MIPSdividends were included with interest on long-term debt due to the adoption of SFAS No.150. (b) In order to achieve a ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred and preferencestock dividend requirements of one to one, Total Earnings would need to increase byapproximately $122 million.
31
#### In the Matter of Joseph Lieberman, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Determination of Commissioner of Motor Vehicles unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, without costs to either party. While revocation of the operator’s license of petitioner may seem to constitute a 'severe discipline imposed after 45 years of automobile operation without unusual incident, nevertheless, petitioner is in a position to make a new application for an operator’s license within a relatively short period. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ROUNDY'S, INC. FROM 10K-405 FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 01-01-2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                      68,385,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               87,659,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                166,514,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           335,947,600
<PP&E>                                     244,410,800
<DEPRECIATION>                             112,703,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             497,324,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      268,011,100
<BONDS>                                     48,563,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,371,600
<OTHER-SE>                                 141,467,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               497,324,700
<SALES>                                  2,717,216,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,727,334,300
<CGS>                                    2,450,462,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,450,462,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           239,153,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,596,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,503,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             29,618,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,009,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         17,609,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                17,609,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN ISSUERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**For the month of March 2006**(Commission File No. 1-14728)

Lan Airlines S.A.(Translation of registrant's name in English)**Avenida Americo Vespucio Sur 901Renca,Santiago, Chile**(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual 
  reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.)

Form 20-F **X**Form 40-F _____

(Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the 
  information contained in this form is also thereby furnishing the
  information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934.)

Yes __ No **X**

---





MATERIAL FACT





Santiago, March 20, 2005



Mr. Alberto Etchegaray de la Cerda

Superintendent of Securities and Insurance

Present





To whom it may concern:



In compliance with current regulations, I inform you that at an Extraordinary Board of Directors meeting held March 17, 2006, the Board of Lan Airlines S.A. resolved to call an ordinary Shareholders Meeting to be held on April 28, 2006 at 11:00pm, in order to discuss the following matters:



a)            Approval of the Report, Balance Sheet and Financial Statements of the company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005;



b)            Approval of the distribution of dividend of no less than the minimum 30% required to be charged to the earnings for fiscal year 2005, including in this sum the provisional dividends of U.S. $0.11430 and U.S. $0.10975 per share paid in the months of September 2005 and March 2006, respectively. The interim dividend agreed on will be paid beginning on May 17, 2006;



c)Election of the Board of Directors;



d)Determination of the compensation for the Board of Directors for fiscal year 2006;



e)Determination of the compensation for the Directors Committee and their budget for fiscal year 2006;



f)Designation of External Auditors; Designation of Risk Assessors; Accounts of the matters referred to in article 44 of Law 18046 on corporations;



g)Information regarding the cost of processing, printing and distribution of the information as referred to in Circular N.1494 of the Superintendence of Securities and Insurance; and





---







h)Any other matter of public interest that should be known for the Shareholders Meeting.



Sincerely,







|/s/ Alejandro de la Fuente G.
|-----------------------------

Alejandro de la Fuente G.

Chief Financial Officer

Lan Airlines S.A.















---





SIGNATURE



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, thereunto duly authorized.



Date: March 20, 2006





| | Lan Airlines S.A.                                                                   
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/Alejandro de la Fuente GoicBy: Alejandro de la Fuente GoicChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


        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 DYNASIL CORPORATION
OF AMERICA (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig T Dunham,
President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of The Company.



                                    /s/ Craig T Dunham
                                   -------------------
                                   Craig T Dunham
                                   President and Chief Executive
                                   Officer


                                   /s/ Laura Lunardo
                                   -------------------
                                   Laura Lunardo
                                   Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2005
§ 37.125 May I award or administer TIAs if I am authorized to award or administer other assistance instruments? ( a ) You must have specific authorization to award or administer TIAs. Being authorized to award or administer grants and cooperative agreements is not sufficient; a grants officer is an agreements officer only if the statement of appointment also authorizes the award or administration of TIAs.
( b ) You receive that authorization in the same way that you receive authority to award other assistance instruments, as described in 32 CFR 21.425 and 21.435 through 21.445.
### Thermal effects of large bodies of intrusive serpentinite on overlying Monterey Shale, southern Diablo Range, Cholame area, California

By: K. J. MurataT.W. Dibblee Jr.J. L. Drinkwater

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1082

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Opinion issued April 4, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00180-CR

NO. 01-23-00182-CR

NO. 01-23-00183-CR

NO. 01-23-00184-CR

———————————

IN RE ROBERT NOBLE SHELL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Nobel Shell, incarcerated and acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus requesting that our Court direct the Harris County Jail and the Harris 

County District Clerk to “electronically deliver over one dozen motions in 
2

compliance with the statewide mandate for electronic filing.”1 We deny the petition.

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert Nobel Shell, cause numbers 

1692043, 1692044, 1738739, and 1776723, pending in the 339th District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Te’iva J. Bell presiding.
Written Decription of Compensatory Arrangement with Chief Operating Officer


    Exhibit
      10.19

     

    Written
      Description of Compensatory Arrangement with Chief Operating
      Officer

    


    Carter
      Peters was appointed as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
      of
      Guaranty Federal Bancshares and Guaranty Bank (the “Bank”)
      effective August 8, 2005. The Bank has agreed to pay Mr. Peters an annual salary
      of $125,000, which will be reviewed annually, and may be increased based on
      such
      review, by the Bank. Mr. Peters may also receive a performance bonus in 2006
      based on the Bank achieving profit plan and earnings per share growth. There
      is
      no written employment agreement between the parties.
#### § 150.14 Waiver or withdrawal of appellate review.

Withdrawals from appellate review, and waivers of appellate review filed after expiration of the period prescribed by the Rule for Courts-Martial 1110(f)(1), will be referred to the Court for consideration. At its discretion, the Court may require the filing of a motion for withdrawal, issue a show cause order, or grant the withdrawal without further action, as may be appropriate. The Court will return the record of trial, in a case withdrawn from appellate review, to the Judge Advocate General for action pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1112.
#### Irving M. Schwartz, Doing Business as Acme Trading Company, Appellant, v. Colorfilm, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Appeal from order entered on June 29, 1960, granting defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, unanimously dismissed, without costs. No opinion. Order entered on September 15, 19-60, denying plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing upon additional papers of defendant Colorfilm, Inc.’s, motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
# C_2008247EN.01002303.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/23

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Cornwell v Commission

(Case T-102/04) (1)

1

(2008/C 247/47)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3023924-MAY-201109:23 AM
### SUBCHAPTER II—ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE AND FOOD SECURITY
Order entered March 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01316-CR

BERNARD EUGENE BROOKINS, JR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-83124-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 20, 2019 motion seeking access to the record in 

order to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED to 

the extent we ORDER appellant’s counsel to send appellant copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s 

records and to provide this Court, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, with written 

verification that the record has been sent to appellant. 

Appellant’s pro se response to the Anders brief is due by May 20, 2019. If appellant 

does not file a pro se response by May 20, 2019, the appeal will be submitted upon the brief of 

counsel. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

appellant’s counsel and to counsel for the State.
–2–

We further DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to Bernard 

Eugene Brookins, Jr., TDCJ No. 02232157, Coffield Unit, 2661 FM 2054, Tennessee Colony, 

Texas 75884.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
#### § 21.665 Nonprocurement instrument.

A legal instrument other than a procurement contract. Examples include instruments of financial assistance, such as grants or cooperative agreements, and those of technical assistance, which provide services in lieu of money.
### §486. Limitation of liability

A person who has completed a security awareness training course approved by or operated under a cooperative agreement with the Department of Homeland Security using funds made available in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter or in any prior appropriations Acts, who is enrolled in a program recognized or acknowledged by an Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and who reports a situation, activity or incident pursuant to that program to an appropriate authority, shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court which result from any act or omission unless such person is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

(Pub. L. 109–90, title V, §541, Oct. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 2089.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.