alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 04-15-0346-CV

_______________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS SITTING AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

_______________________________________________

PETER HENRY NAUMBURG, Appellant , v. NEIDA COURTNEY NAUMBURG, Appellee

.

_____________________________________ APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

____________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
The parties have resolved their issues and Appellant asks that the Court dismiss this appeal. Respectfully submitted,

/S/ 

# Jeff Small
Jeff Small L AW O FFICE OF J EFF S MALL State Bar No. 00793027 Attorney for Appellant 12451 Starcrest Dr., Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78216 210.496.0611/F - 210.579.1399 jdslaw@satx.rr.com

1 ACCEPTED 04-15-00346-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/27/2015 10:49:32 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the above was served on the interested parties listed below in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on August 27, 2015. William McNaught State Bar No. 13819200 M C N AUGHT L

AW F IRM Attorney for Appellee 28580 IH 10 West, Suite 4 Fair Oaks Ranch, TX 78015 210.202.0088 mcnaughtlaw@yahoo.com

/S/ 

# Jeff Small
Jeff Small

2
§ 820.23 Consent order. ( a ) *Settlement policy.* DOE encourages settlement of an enforcement proceeding at any time if the settlement is consistent with the objectives of the Act and the DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements. The Director and a person may confer at any time concerning settlement. These settlement conferences shall not be open to the public and there shall be no transcript.
( b ) *Consent order.* Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, DOE may at any time resolve any or all issues in an outstanding enforcement proceeding with a Consent Order. A Consent Order must be signed by the Director and the person who is its subject, or a duly authorized representative, must indicate agreement to the terms contained therein and must be filed. A Consent Order need not constitute an admission by any person that the Act or a DOE Nuclear Safety Requirement has been violated, nor need it constitute a finding by the DOE that such person has violated the Act or a DOE Nuclear Safety Requirement. A Consent Order shall, however, set forth the relevant facts which form the basis for the Order and what remedy, if any, is imposed.
( c ) *Effect on enforcement adjudication.* If a Consent Order is signed after the commencement of an enforcement adjudication, the adjudication of the issues subject to the Consent Order shall be stayed until the completion of the Secretarial Review Process. If the Consent Order becomes a Final Order, the adjudication shall be terminated or modified as specified in the Order.
( d ) *Secretarial review.* A Consent Order shall become a Final Order 30 days after it is filed unless the Secretary files a rejection of the Consent Order or a Modified Consent Order. A Modified Consent Order shall become a Final Order if the Director and the person who is its subject sign it within 15 days of its filing.
Publication 4285 (Rev. 8-2021) Catalog Number 37997E Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov

SEP CHECKLIST

Has your SEP been amended for current law?

Laws related to retirement plans change quite frequently. You’ll need to change plan language and operation to keep 

the plan within the law. More 

Is the business that the SEP covers the only business you own?

Employees of other businesses you or your family members own may have to be treated as employees when 

determining who is an eligible employee under this SEP. More 

Are all eligible employees participating in the SEP?

Any employee who is at least 21 years of age, was employed by you for 3 of the immediately preceding 5 years, and 

received compensation from you of at least $650 during the year is eligible to participate in the SEP. More 

Are you determining each eligible employee’s compensation using the definition in your SEP document?

Compensation used to determine contributions generally includes all bonuses and commissions and is limited to 

$290,000 for 2021. More 

Are contributions to each participant’s SEP-IRA a uniform percentage of the participant’s compensation?

Employer contributions to a SEP must be the same percentage of compensation for each participant maintaining a 

SEP-IRA in the plan. More 

Are SEP contributions to each participant’s IRA limited as required by the Internal Revenue Code?

All SEP contributions must go to traditional IRAs set up for the eligible employees and are limited to the lesser of 25% 

of compensation or $58,000 for 2021. More 

Every year it’s important that you review the requirements for operating your Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) plan. Use this 

checklist to help you keep your plan in compliance with many of the important rules. Check the box if you can answer “yes” to 

the question. For additional information (including examples) on how to find, fix and avoid each mistake, click on “More .” 

If you didn’t check all boxes, you may have a mistake in the operation of your plan. This list is only a guide to a more compliant plan, so 

checking all boxes may not mean your plan is 100% compliant. This list doesn’t contain all plan requirements and shouldn’t be used as 

a substitute for a complete plan review. Learn how to correct mistakes without penalty and without notifying the IRS at 

www.irs.gov/fixmyplan. Don’t send this checklist to the IRS.

See www.irs.gov/retirement and click “Types of Retirement Plans” for Fix-It Guides and other resources for SEP and other plan types.

Contact your tax advisor www.irs.gov/retirement Call the IRS at 877-829-5500
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          87,944
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             720
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,993,530
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      4,222,086
<ALLOWANCE>                                     92,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,921,701
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,588,320
<SHORT-TERM>                                   180,851
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          5,653,817
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,026,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,927
<OTHER-SE>                                     440,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               6,921,701
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                286,696
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               93,064
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                11,826
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               391,586
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              95,418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             207,540
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          184,046
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   52,097
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (727)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                165,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                108,729
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      55,549
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    234
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,783
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.45
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,329
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,260
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                10,548
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                64,217
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   33,271
<RECOVERIES>                                     9,857
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               92,900
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            92,900
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
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 BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ D. Scott Wilkerson
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 7, 2004


                                       25
<PAGE>
Schedule to the form Change in Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10.10 
 SCHEDULE OF PARTICIPATING OFFICERS 
 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. has entered into substantially similar agreements with certain of its officers, including John N. Rigas, Stephen J. Senkowski and William C. Rodruan. Mr. Rodruan’s agreement has been modified to
provide a 2x multiplier, and Section 16(P) has been modified to remove the “modified single trigger” provision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
ACCOMPANYING  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-2-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-5-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-3-1999
<CASH>                                             27,984
<SECURITIES>                                       55,815
<RECEIVABLES>                                      34,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                        2,370
<INVENTORY>                                        26,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  163,217
<PP&E>                                            917,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                    586,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    523,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             358,571
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              654
<OTHER-SE>                                         71,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      523,048
<SALES>                                            79,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   79,898
<CGS>                                              97,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      97,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  206,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (559)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  6,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (229,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (229,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (229,166)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (3.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (3.50)


</TABLE>
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 BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ D. Scott Wilkerson
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2004


                                       31
<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.20 Public inspection of application.

Applications and documents submitted to the Commission in connection with applications may be made available for public inspection in accordance with provisions of the regulations contained in parts 2 and 9 of this chapter.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32434]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Criminal Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation.

DATES: April 11-12, 2011. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESS: United States Court of Appeals, Pioneer Courthouse, 700 SW. 
Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Rules 
Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Peter G. McCabe,
Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-32434 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 668 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 668

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 20, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2018, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair 
of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the 
Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 
read. The motion shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
adoption without intervening motion. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply to 
the motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### STIEBEL et al. v. LISSBERGER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Action by Samuel J. Stiebel and others against Edmund Lissberger.

No opinion. Motion granted, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Order filed.
#### Solomon Bowman *et al. vs.*St. Paul German Insurance Co.

Argued July 2, 1894.

Affirmed July 13, 1894.

No. 8791.

Appeal by defendant, the St. Paul German Insurance Company, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, *J. J. Sgan,*J., made January 13, 1S94, denying its motion for a new trial.

The facts in this case are the same as in *Bowman*v. *Hekla Fire Ins. Go., ante,*p. 173. The judgment was recovered in the same court of Common Pleas in Charleston County, South Carolina, and was certified in the same way as in that action. The court made findings and ordered judgment for plaintiffs. The defendant moved for a new trial. Being denied, it appeals.

*G. H. & TJios. B. O’Brien,*for appellant.

*Morphy, Swing, Gilbert & Swing,*for respondents.

Gilbtllan, C. J.-

This decision in this case follows that in *Bowman*v. *Hekla Fire Insurance Co., ubi supra.*Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 59 N. *W.*943.)
NO. SCPW-10-0000207

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NOS. 88-2209 and 89-0024)

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.

and Circuit Judge Trader, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's

petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that forfeiture of

bail is not a proceeding for which petitioner is entitled to

appointment of counsel. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to

mandamus relief. See HRS § 802-1 (1993); State v. Camara, 81

Hawai#i 324, 329 n.7, 916 P.2d 1225, 1330 n.7 (1996); Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Accordingly,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-10-0000207

22-DEC-2010

01:17 PM
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 22, 2010.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Rom A. Trader

2
**Exhibit 32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, Thian Hoo Tan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Komag, Incorporated on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations ofKomag, Incorporated.         BY: /s/ Thian Hoo Tan           Thian Hoo Tan    Chief Executive Officer    Komag, Incorporated       I, Kathleen A. Bayless, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Komag, Incorporatedon Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained insuch 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Komag, Incorporated.         BY: /s/ Kathleen A. Bayless           Kathleen A. Bayless    Chief Financial Officer    Komag, Incorporated       This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemedfiled by Komag, Incorporated for purposes of Section 18 of the Security Exchange Act of 1934,as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Komag, Incorporated and will be retained by Komag, Incorporated and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50450 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JACKIE LENARD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-94-CR-116

- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jackie Lenard appeals the sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of his term of supervised release. This court will uphold a sentence imposed following the revocation of a term of supervised release unless it was in violation of law or was plainly unreasonable. United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 89, 93-94 (5th Cir. 1994). Lenard argues that the sentence was plainly unreasonable.No. 96-50450 - 2 - Lenard’s sentence was not unlawful as it was within the statutory maximum upon revocation of supervised release for a defendant whose underlying offense was a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also Mathena , 23 F.3d at 94. Nor was Lenard’s sentence “plainly unreasonable” as the district court determined that Lenard’s multiple and varied violations indicated his intent not to abide by the terms of his supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.825 What information must I provide to the debarring official if I contest the proposed debarment? ( a ) In addition to any information and argument in opposition, as a respondent your submission to the debarring official must identify— ( 1 ) Specific facts that contradict the statements contained in the Notice of Proposed Debarment. Include any information about any of the factors listed in § 180.860. A general denial is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute over facts material to the debarment;
( 2 ) All existing, proposed, or prior exclusions under regulations implementing Executive Order 12549 and all similar actions taken by Federal, State, or local agencies, including administrative agreements that affect only those agencies;
( 3 ) All criminal and civil proceedings not included in the Notice of Proposed Debarment that grew out of facts relevant to the cause(s) stated in the notice; and
( 4 ) All of your affiliates.
( b ) If you fail to disclose this information, or provide false information, the Federal agency taking the action may seek further criminal, civil or administrative action against you, as appropriate.