alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       137,698
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                54,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             193,519
<PP&E>                                       82,647
<DEPRECIATION>                              (15,217)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               310,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        331,801
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     417,565
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,672,751)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 310,949
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             131,708
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                172,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             622,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           182,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (444,472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (444,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                (444,472)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.01)



</TABLE>
#### 1850.103-5 Processing cases.
EXHIBIT 32.2

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended March 30,
2008

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Brenn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James E. Brenn     
|James E. Brenn         
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 9, 2008            

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131139 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131139 

 COA: 259499 

Genesee CC: 04-014350-FC 

GLEN LAVELLE VARY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
#### Barbara Corsaro, an Infant, by Nettie Corsaro v. Susan Luster.

Application denied, with $10 costs. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated December 22, 1960, is vacated. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
#### Anthony Melillo *v.*Eugene Patenaude et al.

*Charles A. Pirro III*and *Donald L. Becker,*in support of the petition.

*Joseph F. Sgueglia, Jr.,*in opposition.

Submitted December 31, 1974

decided January 7, 1975

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
#### § 536.112 Settlement authority for claims arising under international agreements (for those claims arising in the United States).

Settlement authority is delegated to the Commander USARCS, except for settlement amounts exceeding the Commander's authority as set forth in subparts C, D, or H of this part, or in those cases where settlement is reserved to a higher authority. Pursuant to the applicable SOFA, the Commander USARCS will report the proposed settlement to the sending State office for concurrence or objection. See, for example, NATO SOFA, Article VIII.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1483 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1483

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 25) 
    removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2024

Ms. Pressley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 25) 
    removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 25) removing the deadline for the ratification of 
the equal rights amendment. All points of order against consideration 
of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint 
resolution are waived. No amendment to the joint resolution shall be in 
order. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: 
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
consideration of H.J. Res. 25.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 796 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 

employer-provided education assistance to employer payments of student 

loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. KING) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance 

to employer payments of student loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employer Participation 

5 in Repayment Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYER PAYMENTS 

7 OF STUDENT LOANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strikVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:17 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S796.IS S796

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 796 IS

1 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A), by redesig2 nating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by in3 serting after subparagraph (A) the following new subpara4 graph: 

5 ‘‘(B) the payment by an employer, whether 

6 paid to the employee or to a lender, of principal 

7 or interest on any qualified education loan (as 

8 defined in section 221(d)(1)) incurred by the 

9 employee, and’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT; DENIAL OF DOUBLE

11 BENEFIT.—Paragraph (1) of section 221(e) of the Inter12 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before 

13 the period the following: ‘‘, or for which an exclusion is 

14 allowable under section 127 to the taxpayer’s employer by 

15 reason of the payment by such employer of any indebted16 ness on a qualified education loan of the taxpayer’’. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to payments made after December 

19 31, 2017. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Giuseppe Calabro, Plaintiff, v Board of Education of City of New York, Defendant. Talisman, Rudin & DeLorenz, P.C., Nonparty Appellant; Reitano, Spata & Bellini, LLP, Nonparty Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 309]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Talisman, Rudin & DeLorenz, EC., the plaintiffs former attorney, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 20, 2006, as, after a hearing, and upon granting that branch of its motion which was to enforce a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, fixed its proportionate share of a contingent percentage of a legal fee in the sum of only $8,333.33.

*681Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant as its fee in this matter.

To the extent that the respondent contends that the appellant was not entitled to a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, the issue is not properly before us because the respondent did not take an appeal from the order before us. In any event, the Supreme Court did not err in concluding, in effect, that the appellant, as an outgoing attorney discharged without cause, was entitled to enforce its lien under Judiciary Law § 475 and receive a fee for the work it performed prior to its discharge. Furthermore, since this was a dispute between attorneys, the appellant was entitled to elect, and did elect, to be compensated on the basis of *“a*contingent percentage fee based upon the proportionate share of the work [it] performed on the whole case” *(Smerda v City of New York,*7 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]; *see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co.,*73 NY2d 454, 457-458 [1989]; *Byrne v Leblond,*25 AD3d 640, 641-642 [2006]).

The Supreme Court, however, failed to determine what proportion of the work in this matter was actually performed by the appellant. Furthermore, the record is patently insufficient to allow us to determine how much work was actually performed by either the appellant or the other attorneys in this matter since, other than a reference to six days of trial time, there was no testimony adduced at the hearing on the appellant’s motion as to how much time any of the other attorneys spent on any other work performed on behalf of the plaintiff in this action.

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing to determine the proper contingent percentage fee to be awarded to the appellant.

The respondent’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ, concur.
#### 18.117 Awards to economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business Program.

Contracts may be awarded to economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) concerns and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns eligible under the WOSB Program on a competitive or sole source basis. (See subpart 19.15.)

[80 FR 81890, Dec. 31, 2015]
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 4, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00689-CV

KENNETH W. ISAAC, Appellant

V.

CONSTANCE BURNSIDE, Appellee

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 419,942-401

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed August 2, 2016, denying 

appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Generally, appeals may be taken only 

from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders 

remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is entered unless a 

statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 

352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 
2

1992) (orig. proceeding). The August 2, 2016 order does not dispose of all pending 

parties and claims and is therefore interlocutory.

After filing a notice of interlocutory appeal in this case, appellant filed a 

petition in this court for permission to appeal the August 2, 2016 order. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 28.3(a). The petition was docketed into appeal number 14-16-00728-CV. 

That appeal is pending.

On September 26, 2016, notification was transmitted to the parties of this 

court’s intention to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant 

filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response acknowledges that the August 2, 2016 order is 

being appealed in appeal number 14-16-00728-CV and asks that this appeal be 

“administratively closed.” The appropriate disposition of an appeal over which we 

lack jurisdiction is dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.
§ 56.2 Applicability and scope. ( a ) This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Guard Bureau, and the Defense Agencies (hereafter referred to as “DoD Components”) insofar as they: ( 1 ) Extend Federal financial assistance to programs and activities that affect handicapped persons in the United States and that are covered by this part (see § 56.7(b)).
( 2 ) Conduct programs and activities that affect handicapped persons in the United States and that are covered by this part (see § 56.7(c)).
( b ) This part also applies to each recipient of Federal financial assistance disbursed by the Department of Defense and to each program and activity that receives or benefits from such assistance, insofar as such recipient, program, or activity affects a handicapped person in the United States.
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:54
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:55
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:56
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:57
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:58
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:59
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:60
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:61
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:62
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:63
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:64
Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:65
1819.7205 Award Fee Program. ( a ) Mentors may be eligible to earn a separate award fee associated with the provision of developmental assistance to NASA SBIR/STTR Phase II Protégés only. The award fee will be assessed at each award fee determination period.
( b ) The overall developmental assistance performance of NASA contractors, in promoting the use of small businesses as subcontractors, will be a required evaluation factor in award fee plans.
( c ) Evaluation criteria to determine the award fee should include: ( 1 ) Benefit of the agreement to NASA;
( 2 ) Active participation in the Program;
( 3 ) The amount and quality of developmental assistance provided;
( 4 ) Success of the protégés in increasing their business as a result of receiving developmental assistance; and
( 5 ) Accomplishment of any other activity as related to the mentor-protégé relationship.
( d ) The Award Fee Program is an addition to the credit agreement, reference 1819.7206. Participants that are eligible for award fee may also receive credit under their individual contract's award fee plan.
[80 FR 12938, Mar. 12, 2015, as amended at 88 FR 69885, Oct. 10, 2023]
EXHIBIT
10.32





Subsidiaries
of Security National


Financial
Corporation


as of
March 31, 2008








Security
National Life Insurance Company





SecurityNational
Mortgage Company





Memorial
Estates, Inc.





Memorial
Mortuary





Paradise
Chapel Funeral Home, Inc.





California
Memorial Estates, Inc.





Cottonwood
Mortuary, Inc.





Deseret
Memorial, Inc.





Holladay
Cottonwood Memorial Foundation





Holladay
Memorial Park, Inc.





Greer-Wilson
Funeral Home, Inc.





Crystal
Rose Funeral Home, Inc.





Insuradyne
Corporation





Security
National Funding Company





Security
National Life Insurance Company of Louisiana (Formerly Paramount Security Life
Insurance Company)





Security
National Capital, Inc.





Memorial
Insurance Company of America





Capital
Reserve Life Insurance Company





C & J
Financial, LLC
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                   AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS

      WHEREAS, the Company's By-Laws dated June 7, 2002 attached hereto (the
"By-Laws") currently provide in Article IX, "Amendments" that they:

      "may be altered, amended, or repealed or new By-Laws adopted by the Board
of Directors at any regular meeting of the Board of Directors or at any special
meeting of the Board of Directors...",

      WHEREAS, the By-Laws further provide in Article III, Section 19, "Actions
Without a Meeting", that:

      "any action required or permitted to be taken at any meeting of the Board
of Directors or of any committee thereof may be taken without a meeting, if all
members of the Board of Directors or committee, as the case may be, consent
thereto in writing...".

      WHEREAS, Article V, Section 5, "Officers", of the By-Laws provides that:

      "The Chairman of the Board shall be an officer of the Corporation and
shall report directly to the Board of Directors".

      WHEREAS, the Board is sensitive to the need for all of its members,
including its Chairman, to be independent within the meaning of the Company's
director independence standards, which reflect exactly NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc.
director independences standards, as currently in effect. To help assure such
independence, the Board believes that it in the best interest of the Company and
its Board of Directors that the Chairman of the Board not be an officer of the
Company and, accordingly, the Board adopts the resolution set forth hereafter.

      RESOLVED, that, Article V, Section 5, "Officers" of the Company's By-Laws
be amended to remove that portion which provides that the Chairman of the Board
shall be an officer of the Corporation, and that Section 5 be deleted in its
entirely and replaced with the following:

Section 5. Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall not be an
officer of the Corporation and shall report directly to the Board of Directors.
The Chairman of the Board shall preside when present at all meetings of the
Board of Directors and shall preside when present at all meetings of the
shareholders. Provided that the Chairman of the Board not perform any duties
which are traditionally performed by an officer of the Company, the Chairman
shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board of
Directors may from time to time determine.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 8, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00132

- CV

IN RE Kelly Blakeslee ALTIC , Shipt, Inc.

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On February 21, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

temporary relief . On February 22, 2023, relators filed a motion to dismiss the mandamus petition

and motion for temporary relief because the parties settled the underlying cause. 2 We GRANT the

motion and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandam us and motion for temporary relief.

It is so ORDERED on March 8, 2023

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of March, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CI180 86 , styled Cedric English v. Kelly Blakeslee Altic and Shipt, Inc.

, pending in the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angelica Jimenez presiding.

2 Relators filed an advisory requesting to withdraw their mandamus petition and motion for temporary relief. We

construe this advisory as a motion to dismiss.
#### 1852.223-73 Safety and health plan.

As prescribed in 1823.7001(c), insert the following provision:

# Safety and Health Plan (JUL 2015)

(a) The offeror shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan as part of its proposal. The plan shall include a detailed discussion of the policies, procedures, and techniques that will be used to ensure the safety and occupational health of Contractor employees and to ensure the safety of all working conditions throughout the performance of the contract.

(b) The plan shall similarly address subcontractor employee safety and occupational health for those proposed subcontracts or subcontract effort where the work will be conducted completely or partly on a Federally-controlled facility.

(c) This plan, as approved by the Contracting Officer, will be incorporated into any resulting contract.

(End of clause)

Alternate I (JUL 2015)

As prescribed in 1823.7001(c), delete the first sentence in paragraph (a) of the basic provision and substitute the following:

The apparent low bidder, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit a detailed safety and occupational health plan. The plan shall be submitted within the time specified by the Contracting Officer. Failure to submit an acceptable plan shall make the bidder ineligible for the award of a contract.

[80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 12420, Mar. 9, 2016; 81 FR 24501, Apr. 26, 2016; 81 FR 71638, Oct. 18, 2016]