alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1775.23 Grant servicing.

Grants will be serviced in accordance with RUS Guide 1775-1 and subpart E of part 1951 of this title. When grants are terminated for cause, 7 CFR part 11 will be followed.
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 Ottawa Savings Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned 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/ Gary L. OcepekGary L. OcepekPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 10, 2007/s/ Jon L. KranovJon L. KranovSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2007
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.675 Allocation of HPG funds to States and unused HPG funds.

The allocation and distribution of HPG funds is found in § 1940.578 of subpart L of part 1940 of this chapter.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

VICTOR WRIDEN

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 4087

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Or ange County

, Alan S. Apte , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and

Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender,

Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D Tatman,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Victor Wriden’s convictions and sentences. However, we remand this

matter to the trial court to enter a written order adjudicating Wriden competent to proceed

nunc pro tunc to August 27, 2015, the date when the trial court orally found on the record

that Wriden was competent.2

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF ORDER.

SAWAYA , ORFINGER and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.
#### Seaboard Surety Company, Appellant, v Gillette Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 23, 1979, granting defendant Gillette’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in . the exercise of discretion, with costs and disbursements, and the motion denied. Relying solely upon the basis of priority, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was premised upon the pendency of "another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action” (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 4). While priority must be considered in weighing such a motion, it is not necessarily the controlling factor, particularly in the circumstances found here. The actions were commenced almost simultaneously. In fact, service was completed that same day on the codefendant in this action and a purported service was effected upon movant also that day. Even if this service were valid, an issue never reached at Special Term, movant would still have a technical priority of a few hours. Concededly, proper service was effected one month later. In either event the priority upon which movant relies, is relatively insignificant. More importantly, New York presently provides the only forum where the three principals to this controversy are parties and in which they may litigate common issues. Whether coverage exists under the libel policies would appear to be inextricably linked to defendants’ joint conduct during the course of an advertising campaign, and the joint settlement of the resulting lawsuit. Thus, New York provides the most suitable forum for a complete and expeditious resolution of the issues. Finally, as matters now stand, if plaintiff is deprived of its New York forum, it will have to litigate the same issues in two other courts. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Silverman, Lynch and Carro, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

              COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

      Each non-employee director of Open Solutions Inc. (the "Company") is paid
an annual retainer consisting of (i) $12,000 in cash and (ii) restricted stock
units granted pursuant to the Company's 2003 Stock Incentive Plan with an
initial value of $12,000. The number of restricted stock units granted is
determined by dividing $12,000 by the last sale price of the Company's common
stock on the Nasdaq National Market on the date of grant. The restricted stock
units vest on the earlier of (i) the date on which the non-employee director
leaves the Board and (ii) the ninth anniversary of the January 1 immediately
following the date of grant. Each non-employee director may elect to receive all
or part of the cash portion of the annual retainer in the form of restricted
stock units as described above.

      Each non-employee director also receives an amount equal to $1,000 for
each Board meeting that the non-employee director personally attends, or $750
for each Board meeting that the non-employee director participates in by
telephone. In addition, each non-employee director who serves on the Audit
Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,000 and each non-employee director
who serves on the Compensation and Nominations Committees receives an annual
retainer of $4,000. The chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional
$5,000 per year, and the chairmen of the Compensation and Nominations Committees
each receive an additional $2,500 per year.

      Each non-employee director will also receive (i) upon initial election to
the Board, an option to purchase 15,000 shares of the Company's common stock,
(ii) on the date of the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, an option to
purchase 15,000 shares of the Company's common stock (except for Howard Carver,
who will receive 5,000 shares because he received a grant of 15,000 shares upon
initial election to the Board in 2004, which the other non-employee directors
did not receive), and (iii) on the date of each Annual Meeting of Stockholders
after the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, an option to purchase 5,000
shares of the Company's common stock. Such options will have an exercise price
equal to the last sale price of the Company's common stock on the Nasdaq
National Market on the date of grant. One-third of the shares of common stock
underlying each option will be exercisable one year after the date of grant, and
the remaining shares will vest monthly thereafter over a two-year period.

      The Company reimburses its non-employee directors for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending Board or committee meetings. No
director who is an employee of the Company receives separate compensation for
services rendered as a director.
Figure 4. Proportion of labor force composed of women climbs steadily                from 1900-1999

 In Percent 1900: Proportion women = 18.2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RONALD EUGENE REYNOLDS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 0037 6

- CR

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 4

of Montgomery County, Texas

(TC # 15

- 3078 9 2 )

O R D E R

The Court has determined that it is necessary to review the original of State’s Exhibits 149

(Client file for Kalisha Keller), 150 (Client file for George Sanchez), 151 (client file for Carolina

Castelan), and 152 (client file for Jose and Destiny Trevino). It is therefore Ordered that Cassandra

McCoy, Official Court Reporter of the County Co urt at Law Number Four for Montgomery

County, Texas, prepare a supplemental Reporter’s Record to include the original of State’s

Exhibits 149, 150, 151, and 152 and forward the same to this Court on or before June 26, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information taken from the balance
sheet as of June 30, 1999 and the statement of operations for the twelve-
month period ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                             8,760,916
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      3,570,197
<ALLOWANCES>                         230,000
<INVENTORY>                            1,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  12,102,136
<PP&E>                               732,344
<DEPRECIATION>                       706,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    13,102,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,165,870
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             269,839
<OTHER-SE>                        11,326,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      13,102,797
<SALES>                              336,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,643,624
<CGS>                                212,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        212,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,999,453
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (379,372)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (568,477)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (291,313)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (277,164)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (277,164)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.01)

                                 48
<PAGE>



</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RANDY A. HART,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5233/LAC/EMT

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March 

9, 2021 (ECF No. 20). Efforts were made to furnish Plaintiff a copy of the Report 

and Recommendation and afford him an opportunity to file objections pursuant to 

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). All mail was returned as 

undeliverable noting that the Plaintiff had been released from prison and left no 

forwarding address. No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

20) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05233-LC-EMT Document 22 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5233/LAC/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2021.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05233-LC-EMT Document 22 Filed 03/23/21 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 1:03-CR-048-SPM

ENRIQUE MALDONADO PINEDA and

OMAR GARCIA VASQUEZ-CASARES,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER SETTING RESENTENCING

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the mandate issued by the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (doc. 224) on March 1, 2006, wherein the

appellate court remanded the case as to defendants Vasquez-Casares and

Pineda for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Sentencing is reset for Monday, May 1, 2006 at 1:30 pm at the

United States Courthouse in Gainesville, Florida.

2. At sentencing, the Government shall be prepared to address the

Case 1:03-cr-00048-MW-AK Document 225 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
issue of the two-level enhancement given to Vasquez-Casares for

his role in the offense (see p. 11 of the appellate opinion).

3. The United States Marshal’s Office is directed to arrange for timely

transport of both defendants.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-second day of March, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 1:03-cr-00048-MW-AK Document 225 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:03-cr-00048-MW-AK Document 225 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MWI VeterinarySupply, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, James F. Cleary, Jr. and Mary Patricia B. Thompson, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

 
|        | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Actof 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 as of the dates and for the periods  expressed in the Report. |

 

August 4, 2006

 
| /s/  James F. Cleary, Jr.     |     |
|-------------------------------|----------|
| James F. Cleary, Jr.          |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer*     | * * |
|                          |     |
|                          |     |
| /s/ Mary Patricia B. Thompson |     |
| Mary Patricia B. Thompson     |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer*     | * * |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BLUE
DOLPHIN ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,748,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  860,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,874,350
<PP&E>                                      24,468,711
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,267,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,069,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,214,658
<BONDS>                                         10,000
<COMMON>                                       353,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,456,048
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,288,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,069,178
<SALES>                                        684,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,123,053
<CGS>                                        1,190,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,290,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             405,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,195,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,840,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,355,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,355,686
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11

</TABLE>
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 218 

For the relief of Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ENRIQUE 

4 SORIANO AND ARELI SORIANO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano shall each be eligi8 ble for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

9 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma10 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

11 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 

12 adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 218 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Enrique Soriano 

2 or Areli Soriano enters the United States before the filing 

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), he or she shall be con4 sidered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 

5 if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano, the Sec16 retary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 

17 by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 

18 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

19 to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 

20 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli21 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

22 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

23 under section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 218 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Enrique Soriano and 

2 Areli Soriano shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 

3 accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immi4 gration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
#### § 1734.43 Maximum and minimum amounts.

Applications for loans under this subpart will be subject to limitations on the proposed amount of loans. The Administrator will establish the maximum amount of a loan available to an applicant under this subpart.
Exhibit 10.1
 AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
       1. Section 2. 3(f) is amended by adding the following sentences to the end thereof:
  2. Section 2. 4(e) is deleted and replaced by the following:
 (e)
    
    Limitation on Certain Additional
Payments. Anything in this Agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding, in the event it is determined that any payment or
distribution by the Company to or for the benefit of the Executive
(Payments) would be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999
of the Code, then the Payments under this Agreement shall be decreased
to the greatest




---



##### 



amount that could be paid to the Executive such that receipt of
Payments will not give rise to any such excise tax. In the event it
is determined that Payments would be subject to the excise tax
imposed under Section 4999 of the Code, such Payments shall be first
reduced by those Payments under this Agreement that are not subject
to Section 409A of the Code, and, if necessary, then out of the
Payments that are subject to Section 409A of the Code, starting with
the Payments that are to be paid on the latest future date, so that
there will be no Payments subject to the excise tax imposed by
Section 4999 of the Code.
  ORCHIDS PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY
    
    ROBERT SNYDERBy
    
    /s/ Keith R. Schroeder
    
    /s/ Robert SnyderDate
    
    8/22/2008
    
    Date 8/22/2008
§ 250.65 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). ( a ) *Distribution of donated foods in FDPIR.* The Department provides donated foods in FDPIR to the distributing agency (*i.e.,* the State agency, in accordance with 7 CFR parts 253 and 254, which may be an Indian Tribal Organization) for further distribution, in accordance with 7 CFR parts 253 and 254. The State agency must comply with the requirements of this part in the distribution, control, and use of donated foods, to the extent that such requirements are not inconsistent with the requirements in 7 CFR parts 253 and 254.
( b ) *Types of donated foods distributed.* Donated foods distributed in FDPIR include Section 4(a) foods, and donated foods provided under Section 32, Section 416, or Section 709, as available.
2005-0103.

#### Lorince v. Universal Underwriters.

Cuyahoga App. No. 83711, 2004-Ohio-6287. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2006-Ohio-1193, 843 N.E.2d 1212. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.