alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FORM 6-K

SECURITIES
  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,
  D.C. 20549

# Report of
  Foreign Issuer

# Pursuant
  to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

# Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934

For the month
  of August 2004

ABBEY NATIONAL
  PLC 
  (Translation of registrants name into English)

Abbey National
  House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place
London NW1 3AN, England   
   (Address of principal executive offices)

|Indicate
      by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
      cover 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. . . .

---

Abbey National plc02 August 2004 Issued: 02 August 2004 Rule 2.10 Announcement – Relevant Securities in Issue In accordance with Rule 2.10 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, Abbey National plc (“Abbey”) confirms that, as at opening of business on 02 August 2004, it had in issue 1,476,018,846(including those represented by ADSs) ordinary shares of 10 pence each (“Abbey Shares”). The International Securities Identification Number for the Abbey Shares is GB0000044551 and for the American Depositary Shares of Abbey is US0029201060. Each American Depositary Share of Abbey represents two Abbey Shares. Jason WrightAssistant SecretaryTel: 0207 756 4767/6 The directors of Abbey National plc accept responsibility for the information contained in this announcement and confirm that, to the best of their knowledge and belief (having taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this announcement is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.




---

# 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, thereunto
  duly authorized.

|                    |  | ABBEY NATIONAL PLC           
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: 2 August 2004 |  | By: /s/ Gail McGrath         
|                    |  | Gail McGrathAbbey Secretariat
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0742

LITTLE BIG WARM RANCH, LLC, 

and

MARK FRENCH

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

WILFRED DOLL, 

Defendant, Appellee and CrossAppellant, 

BRIAN ROBINSON,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 

TO FILE RESPONSE AND CROSSMOTION OPENING BRIEF

Pursuant to the authority granted under M.R.App.P. 26(1), Appellee and 

Cross Appellant Willie Doll is granted an extension of time until June 5, 2023 to 

prepare, file and serve Appellee’s combined response and cross-appeal brief.

Dated this day of _________, 2023.

______________________

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

Cc: Monica Tranel, Ross Miller, Hertha Lund, Ben Stormes 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 20 2023

04/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0742
**EXHIBIT
      32.B**











**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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
      September 30, 2007, of El Paso Natural Gas Company
      (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Sult, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
      Officer and Controller, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.














*/s/
              JOHN R. SULT*John
                R.
                SultSenior
                Vice
                President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller(Principal
                Accounting and Financial Officer)November
                6,
                2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-202-2020]

On November 12, 2020, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting an expansion of Subzone 18F, subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18, on behalf of Lam Research Corporation, in Fremont, California.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (85 FR 73458-73459, November 18, 2020). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for                           ( print page 56)                        approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 18F was approved on December 29, 2020, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 18's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

Dated: December 29, 2020.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020-29115 Filed 12-31-20; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Gordon Maunsell et al., Respondents, v. Ferris Brown et al., Appellants.

In an action to establish a boundary between adjoining parcels of land, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Rock-land County, rendered February 29, I960, in favor of plaintiffs, after a nonjury trial, adjudging that they are the owners of a gore between the respective lands of the parties. Judgment affirmed on the facts, with costs. No opinion. The following new findings of fact are made: that the northerly boundary of the parcel conveyed to Clifton Stiles constitutes the basis of the measurements in the conveyance to Ella Limper, and that the southerly line of Huschle’s premises is marked by the stone wall which is delineated on the drawing of witness Tuda as the northerly boundary of parcel No. 1. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### McREYNOLDS v. MANGER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Reference—Stenographer’s Services.

Where a stenographer is employed in proceedings before a referee, and it appeared that the referee was not causing the services to be rendered at his personal expense, the parties were liable for the stenographer’s services.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District.

Action by William E. McReynolds against William Manger and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Edmund T. Oldhan, for appellants.

McReynolds & Hunter, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

Upon the agreed state of facts the defendants’ liability for the services rendered by the plaintiff as an unofficial stenographer was properly determined. Without a stipulation, the fees of the stenographer could not become a part of the referee’s charges, which were limited to the statutory per diem compensation; and the .parties, when accepting the stenographer’s services, must be deemed t<p have known that the referee was not the employer, unless it were assumed that he was causing the services to be rendered at his personal expense. The situation disclosed negatived such an understanding, and the parties present and interested in the litigation understanding of the parties (Coale v. Suckert, 18 Misc. Rep. 76, 41 N. Y. Supp. 583; Bormay v. Van Ness, 26 Misc. Rep. 599, 56 N. Y. Supp. 640.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### PATRICIA NOURSE v. FOOD LION, INC.

No. 471A97

(Filed 6 March 1998)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 235, 488 S.E.2d 608 (1997), reversing the superior court’s order entered by LaBarre, J., on 1 July 1996, in Superior Court, Wake County, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 1998.

*J.B. Rouse III & Associates, by Ginger L. Crosby and Graham F. Gurnee, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Mark Davis, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

Justices Frye, Webb, Whichard, and Lake voted to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the majority opinion by Greene, J. Chief Justice Mitchell, and Justices Parker and Orr voted to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by John, J. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
(December 29, 1978)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Keller, Appellant.

Motion by appellant and cross motion by respondent to reargue the appeal from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed June 16, 1978, which was decided by order of this court dated October 30, 1978. Motion and cross motion denied. On the court’s own motion, the decision and order of this court, both dated October 30, 1978 [65 AD2d 28], are vacated and recalled, and the following substituted decision is rendered: Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed June 16, 1978, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the sixth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, on a plea of guilty. Sentence affirmed. Subsequent to the initial determination of this appeal, the court was supplied with transcripts of judicial proceedings which occurred in the interim between plea and sentence. It is now evident that the defendant was advised that the promised sentence would not be imposed and that he was fully afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea. After receiving two adjournments, the defendant finally advised the court that he did not wish to withdraw his plea. Neither party has explained why these extremely relevant transcripts were not part of the record on appeal. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the intended purpose of our remand, i.e., to *872afford the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea, has been fully satisfied. On the merits, there is no question that the sentence was well within the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion and was properly imposed. Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 37.410 Should my announcement or solicitation state that TIAs may be awarded?

Yes, once you consider the factors described in subpart B of this part and decide that TIAs are among the types of instruments that you may award pursuant to a solicitation, it is important for you to state that fact in the solicitation. You also should state that TIAs are more flexible than traditional Government funding instruments and that provisions are negotiable in areas such as audits and intellectual property rights that may cause concern for commercial firms. Doing so should increase the likelihood that commercial firms will be willing to submit proposals.
#### LEONARD v. BARNUM et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by Chatfield Leonard, as receiver, etc., of Curtis A. Barnum, against Curtis A. Barnum and others.

No opinion. Motion denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

96-20077

Summary Calender

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESSE GALLEGO,

 Defendant-Appellant,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

No. 96-20153

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HERNANDO CHAVERRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-95-87-11

- - - - - - - - - -

November 21, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*
96-20077

-2-

47.5.4.

Hernando Chaverra appeals his conviction for conspiracy to

possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. As his sole issue

on appeal, Chaverra challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to

support his conviction. Having reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties, we hold that the evidence was sufficient

for a reasonable jury to find Chaverra guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. See United States v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480, 487-88 (5th Cir.

1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1142 (1995).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chaverra’s appeal, No. 96-20153,

be SEVERED from that of his codefendant, Jesse Gallego, No. 96-

20077.

AFFIRMED; APPEALS SEVERED.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Fernando Narvaez a/k/a * From the 3 5th District Court

Fernando Aguir r e Narvaez, of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR27 7 88

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 2 7 3

- CR * July 7 , 20 2 3

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
#### TALLON, Respondent, v. MORGAN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Katherine Tallón against Joseph F. Morgan and Robert W. Oliver.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the County Court of Queens county affirmed, with costs.
### SUBCHAPTER II—NEW AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION INITIATIVES
---

---

# EXHIBIT 14(a)(1)

[PricewaterhouseCoopers
Letterhead]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Registration No.
33-34233, Registration No. 33-46861, Registration No. 33-87614, Registration No. 33-97622,
Registration No. 33-97624 and Registration No. 33-39364) of Scailex Corporation Ltd. of
our report dated March 19, 2006, relating to the financial statements of Scailex
Corporation Ltd., which appears in this From 20-F.

|                 |                                                 
|---------------- | ------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman                       
|June 28, 2006    | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)             
|                 | A member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International
|                 | Limited                                         



---

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 29, 2021

No. 04-21-00436-CV

IN RE THOMAS TERAN AND RUIZ AND SONS, INC.

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI02455

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On October 12, 2021, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a

serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the

petition in this court by December 14, 2021. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on November 29, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### GOLDMAN, Respondent, v. DAVIS, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

Action by Barnard Gold*1128man against Henry H. Davis and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Davis appeals. Affirmed.

Henry H. Davis (Benjamin N. Cardzo, of counsel), for appellant. Steuer & Hoffman (Max D. Steuer, of counsel), for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Upon a careful examination of the whole case, it appears that the evidence given at the trial upon the issues raised by the pleadings required the submission to the jury of the questions whether the agreement to pay was made by the defendants, as claimed by the plaintiff, whether there was a consideration for it moving to the defendant, and whether, if there was such a consideration, it was so beneficial to the defendant that it made defendant’s agreement an original and independent undertaking, as distinguished from a collateral one, and that these questions were submitted to the jury under a full and well-considered charge, which carefully guarded all the right of the defendant, within the doctrine of White v. Rintoul, 108 N. Y. 222, 15 N. E. 318. The record discloses no reversible error. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
### §8470. Exemption from legal process; recovery of payments

(a) An amount payable under subchapter II, IV, or V of this chapter is not assignable, either in law or equity, except under the provisions of section 8465 or 8467, or subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment or other legal process, except as otherwise may be provided by Federal laws.

(b) Recovery of payments under subchapter II, IV, or V of this chapter may not be made from an individual when, in the judgment of the Office, the individual is without fault and recovery would be against equity and good conscience. Withholding or recovery of money paid under subchapter II, IV, or V of this chapter on account of a certification or payment made by a former employee of the United States in the discharge of his official duties may be made only if the head of the agency on behalf of which the certification or payment was made certifies to the Office that the certification or payment involved fraud on the part of the former employee.

(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, §101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 577.)
### §2270c. Submission of results

As soon as possible after completing an investigation under section 2270b of this title, the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture shall submit to Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture a report containing the results of the investigation.

(Pub. L. 107–203, §2, July 24, 2002, 116 Stat. 744.)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.14

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of January 1, 1996, is
entered into by and between Tandem Computers Incorporated ("Employer") and David
J. Rynne ("Executive"), to amend the prior employment agreement previously
entered into between Employer and Executive on May 19, 1995 (the "Employment
Agreement").

         Employer and Executive hereby agree that Section 2.01 of the Employment
Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:

         "2.01 Period of Employment. The initial term of Executive's employment
pursuant to this Agreement will commence on May 19, 1995 (the "Commencement
Date") and, unless terminated at an earlier date in accordance with Section 5.01
of this Agreement, shall continue in effect until September 30, 1998 or as
extended to a later date under Section 5.03(a) or 5.03(e) of this Agreement. The
term of Executive's employment under the terms of this Agreement commencing on
the Commencement Date and ending pursuant to the terms hereof is hereinafter
referred to as the "Period of Employment." The initial Period of Employment
under this Agreement shall be subject to extension in twelve month increments as
follows. Prior to September 1 of each year during the Executive's Period of
Employment, Employer may elect (which election shall be made in writing), in its
sole discretion, to terminate Executive's employment on the third succeeding
September 30. If no such election is made, the term of Executive's employment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for an
additional twelve month period, under the terms and conditions in effect at the
time of such extension, or with such modifications as Employer and Executive may
then agree."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer and Executive have executed this Agreement
as of the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof.

         EMPLOYER:                         TANDEM COMPUTERS INCORPORATED



                                           By:  /s/ THOMAS J. PERKINS
                                              _________________________________
                                                 Thomas J. Perkins
                                                Chairman of the Board



         EXECUTIVE:                        By:  /s/ DAVID J. RYNNE
                                              _________________________________
                                                   David J. Rynne
                                               Senior Vice President & Chief
                                                  Financial Officer
### §1639c. Savings provisions

#### (a) Trade

This subchapter shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.

#### (b) Other authorities

Nothing in this subchapter—

(1) affects the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or creates any rights or obligations for any person under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or

(2) affects the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or creates any rights or obligations for any person under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

#### (c) Other

A food may not be considered to be "not bioengineered", "non-GMO", or any other similar claim describing the absence of bioengineering in the food solely because the food is not required to bear a disclosure that the food is bioengineered under this subchapter.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §294, as added Pub. L. 114–216, §1, July 29, 2016, 130 Stat. 838.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, which is classified generally to chapter 9 (§301 et seq.) of Title 21, Food and Drugs. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 301 of Title 21 and Tables.

The Federal Alcohol Administration Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), is act Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 814, 49 Stat. 977, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§201 et seq.) of chapter 8 of Title 27, Intoxicating Liquors. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 201 of Title 27 and Tables.