alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 35.1 Purpose and scope of this part. ( a ) *General.* This part implements section 711 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 1831y). That section requires any nongovernmental entity or person, insured depository institution, or affiliate of an insured depository institution that enters into a covered agreement to— ( 1 ) Make the covered agreement available to the public and the appropriate Federal banking agency; and
( 2 ) File an annual report with the appropriate Federal banking agency concerning the covered agreement.
( b ) *Scope of this part.* The provisions of this part apply to— ( 1 ) A national bank and its subsidiaries;
( 2 ) A Federal savings association and its subsidiaries; and
( 3 ) Nongovernmental entities or persons (NGEPs) that enter into covered agreements with any entity listed in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Relation to Community Reinvestment Act.* This part does not affect in any way the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) (12 U.S.C. 2901 *et seq.*), part 25 of this chapter (Community Reinvestment Act and Interstate Deposit Production Regulations), or the OCC's interpretations or administration of that Act or part 25.
( d ) *Examples.* ( 1 ) The examples in this part are not exclusive. Compliance with an example, to the extent applicable, constitutes compliance with this part.
( 2 ) Examples in a paragraph illustrate only the issue described in the paragraph and do not illustrate any other issues that may arise in this part.
[66 FR 2084, Jan. 10, 2001, as amended at 79 FR 28400, May 16, 2014; 89 FR 22067, Mar. 29, 2024]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 9, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00816

- CV

D. K., Sr., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 35TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILLS COUNTY

BEFORE JUST ICES PURYEAR, GOODWI N, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 4, 2013

. Having

rev iewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

September 19, 2014

149020-2

In re ROSA LOUISE PARKS TRUST.

_________________________________________

ROSA AND RAYMOND PARKS INSTITUTE

FOR SELF-DEVELOPMENT and ELAINE

STEELE,

Petitioners-Appellants,

v SC: 149020

COA: 310948

Wayne PC: 2006-707697-TV

JOHN M. CHASE, JR. and MELVIN D.

JEFFERSON,

Respondents-Appellees, 

and

FREDDIE G. BURTON, JR.,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

In re ROSA LOUISE PARKS TRUST.

_________________________________________

ROSA AND RAYMOND PARKS INSTITUTE

FOR SELF-DEVELOPMENT and ELAINE

STEELE,

Appellants,

v SC: 149021

COA: 311647

Wayne PC: 2006-707697-TV

JOHN M. CHASE, JR. and MELVIN D.

JEFFERSON,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 19, 2014

d0916

2

Clerk

In re ROSA LOUISE PARKS TRUST.

_________________________________________

JOHN M. CHASE, JR. and MELVIN D.

JEFFERSON,

Appellees,

v SC: 149022

COA: 312822

Wayne PC: 2006-707697-TV

ROSA AND RAYMOND PARKS INSTITUTE

FOR SELF-DEVELOPMENT and ELAINE

STEELE,

Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.
**Title:****A rainbow of opportunities, volunteer,brighten your community.
 
1998 | 1999
 
SuDoc Number:T 22.44/2:1275
Item Number:0964-B (online)
CGP System Number:000842402
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
July 13, 2017********
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19807-6 Filed:01/18/22 Entered:01/18/22 13:06:57 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 6 Infracity Report March 2014 Page 1 of 1
#### Live Oak, Perry and Gulf Railroad Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. R. H. Holmes, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed April 28, 1923.

Where a motion for new trial is properly ruled upon in vacation ancl denied, tlie court may, at the time of the denial of the motion, though in vacation, by special order, all'ow further time for the settlement and signing of the bill of exceptions.

A motion to strike the bill of exceptions.

Motion denied.

*John F. Harrell*and *John M.*Gornto; for Plaintiff in Error;

*Hal W. Adams*and W. P. *Chavous,*for Defendant in Error.

West, J.

This is a motion to strike from the transcript of the record the bill of exceptions. The ground of the motion is that the bill of exceptions was signed in vacation by the trial judge, without an order having been made during the term of the court at which the trial was had allowing further time for settling and signing it. Rule 97, Rules of Circuit Courts — Law Actions. During the term at which the trial was had and on the same day that the verdict was returned, for satisfactory cause shown, the court, in accordance with the provisions of section 2811, Revised General Statutes, extended the time of defendant for fifteen days for making and presentation of its motion for a new trial. Within the fifteen days the motion for new trial was presented and denied and the defendant was *464allowed ninety days in which “to have settled and signed its bill of exceptions. ’ ’ The bill of exceptions recites that after the expiration of the term at which .the verdict was rendered, by virtue of a special order made in said cause at the time of ruling on the motion for new trial, the defendant did propose and present its bill of exceptions to the trial judge and request him to sign the same, which was done within the time fixed in the order allowing further time.

Trial courts have power to hear and determine motions for new trials in vacation and adjudications thereof are to be entered in the minutes of the court and given like force and effect as if made during term -time. Sec. 2532, Rev. Gen. Stats. This court has held that where a motion for new trial is properly ruled upon in vacation and denied, the court may, at the time of the denial of the motion, though in vacation, by special order, allow further time for the settlement and signing of the bill of exceptions. Charlotte Harbor, &c., Ry. Co. v. Buchan, 71 Fla. 575, 71 South. Rep. 842; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Mallard, 53 Fla. 515, 43 South. Rep. 755; McGee v. Ancrum, 33 Fla. 499, 15 South. Rep. 231. Upon authority of these eases the motion is deniedi

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, JJ., concur.
[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1893.]

#### STATE OF OHIO EX REL. BURKE v. W. L. COMER ET AL.

For opinion in this case see 2 Ohio Dec., 472.
#### JULIA STROEBEL, PETITIONER, DEFENDANT IN CERTIORARI, v. JEFFERSON TRUCKING AND RIGGING COMPANY, RESPONDENT, PROSECUTOR IN CERTIORARI.

Argued January 16, 1940

Decided February 11, 1940.

Before Justices Bodine and Perskie.

For the prosecutor, *William L. Flanagan*and *William P. Braun.*

For the defendant, *Meyer Bronstein.*

*211Bodine, J.

This writ brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim petition filed June 20th, 1939, to review a former compromise agreement on the ground that the same was contrary to the statute.

It appears that on January 31st, 1929, a petition was filed in the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau claiming compensation by reason of the death on November 5th, 1928, of Otto Stroebel. The matter came on for hearing on June 27th, 1929, and after a partial trial a conference was held and there was a stipulation, a settlement agreement and a discontinuance entered with the approval of the Bureau. A lump sum was paid representing about one-half of the compensation to which the widow and her minor children would have been entitled to. Such compromise agreement was entirely nugatory. P. *Bronstein & Co.*v. *Hoffman,*117 *N. J. L.*500; *Ruoff*v. *Blasi, Id.*47; *affirmed,*118 *Id.*314.

It appears from the record that at the time the petition to reopen was filed several of the minor children of the deceased were still under the age of sixteen and entitled to compensation at the rates fixed by statute, if their deceased parent met with death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The Bureau had a right to entertain the petition inasmuch as the same was filed well within the period when the compensation in the statutory sense should have been paid. *King*v. *Western Electric Co.,*122 *N. J. L.*442, affirmed in the Court of Errors and Appeals on the opinion below at the October Term, 1939.

The action taken in the Bureau will be affirmed and the writ will be dismissed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; SM17 PAR09-066 PCCTR 
U19 applications.
    Date: November 5-6, 2009.
    Time: 5 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: Courtyard Marriott Washingtonian Center, 204 Boardwalk 
Place, Gaithersburg, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Martina Schmidt, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for 
Complementary, & Alternative Medicine, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., 
Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3456, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#681b0b0005010c0509280509010446060100460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfccdcd7d2d6dbd2deffd2ded6d391d1d6d791d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 9, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-24978 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Bank of Fort Pierce, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. New Fort Pierce Hotel Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

Decision Filed January 24, 1923.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County; E. C. Davis, Judge.

*Blackwell, Donnell*& McCracken,-for Appellant;

No appearance for -Apellee.-

*82Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and brief and argument of counsel for the appellant, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132504 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132504 

 COA: 262959 

Wayne CC: 05-001703-01

PAUL ROBERT SIMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 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. 

t0220 

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. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00081-CV

EX PARTE Efrem G. CASILLAS

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

On February 3, 2014, relator Efrem G. Casillas filed an original pro se habeas corpus 

proceeding. Relator alleges that he has been illegally confined to county jail after being held in 

contempt for failure to pay previously ordered child support. Relator provides numerous grounds 

upon which he believes he is entitled to habeas corpus relief and seeks to be released from custody.

However, it is relator’s burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his 

right to habeas corpus relief. See TEX.R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(D) (if a writ of habeas corpus is sought, 

relator must include in the appendix proof that the relator is being restrained); TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(1)-(2) (a relator must file with the petition: (1) “a certified or sworn copy of every 

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1999CI01979, styled Efrem G. Casillas v. Imelda L. Arocha, pending in the 

131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.

 
04-14-00081-CV

proceeding;” and (2) “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any 

underlying proceeding”); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

Relator has failed to provide us with a record to support his claims such as the order complained 

of, proof of restraint, or the reporter’s record from the hearing. Accordingly, relator’s petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is denied.

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                     REXALL SUNDOWN, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                    NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE CALCULATION
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               FISCAL YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31,
                                                          ---------------------------------------
                                                             1997          1996          1995
                                                          -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>           <C>
Net income..............................................  $35,061,596   $20,292,781   $ 4,361,596
                                                          ===========   ===========   ===========
PRIMARY
Weighted average common shares outstanding(1)...........   65,686,910    61,023,150    58,673,020
Common stock equivalents(2).............................    2,220,804       429,314       321,312
                                                          -----------   -----------   -----------
Primary weighted average common shares outstanding......   67,907,714    61,452,464    58,994,332
                                                          ===========   ===========   ===========
Primary net income per common share.....................  $      0.52   $      0.33   $      0.07
                                                          ===========   ===========   ===========
FULLY DILUTED
Weighted average common shares outstanding(1)...........   65,686,910    61,023,150    58,673,020
Common stock equivalents(2).............................    2,195,530       539,024       414,528
                                                          -----------   -----------   -----------
Fully diluted weighted average common shares
  outstanding...........................................   67,882,440    61,562,174    59,087,548
                                                          ===========   ===========   ===========
Fully diluted net income per common share...............  $      0.52   $      0.33   $      0.07
                                                          ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
 
Above reflects the calculation of pro forma net income per common share
retroactivley adjusted for the two-for-one stock split effected on October 23,
1997.
---------------
 
(1) Represents weighted average common shares outstanding for the periods
    indicated.
(2) Common stock equivalents associated with stock options calculated pursuant
    to the treasury stock method taking into consideration the tax benefit
    available to the Company upon the assumed exercise of qualified options.
(3) All share data in the financial statements are stated using the primary
    earnings per share calculation as the above fully diluted calculation is
    anti-dilutive.
Exhibit 32.1



           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 Pioneer  Railcorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, Guy L.Brenkman,
Chief Executive Officer, and J. Michael Carr,  President,  Treasurer,  and Chief
Financial Officer,  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) 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/ Guy L. Brenkman                        /s/ J. Michael Carr
-----------------------                    -------------------------------------
Guy L. Brenkman                            J. Michael Carr
Chief Executive Officer                    President and Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2005


                                       1=
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(dollars in thousands, except ratio data)Year ended December 31,2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Earnings (Loss):Earnings (loss) before provision for
income taxes
    
    $
    (233,231
    )
    
    $
    4,385
    
    
    $
    (268,891
    )
    
    $
    (284,371
    )
    
    $
    (264,087
    )Fixed Charges
    
    
    78,108
    
    
    
    77,780
    
    
    
    82,930
    
    
    
    80,927
    
    
    
    59,505Total Earnings (Loss)
    
    $
    (155,123
    )
    
    $
    82,165
    
    
    $
    (185,961
    )
    
    $
    (203,444
    )
    
    $
    (204,582
    )Fixed Charges:Interest expense on indebtedness
(including amortization of debt
expense and discount)
    
    $
    59,500
    
    
    $
    58,424
    
    
    $
    62,912
    
    
    $
    60,716
    
    
    $
    39,606Interest expense on portion of rent
expense representative of interest
    
    
    18,608
    
    
    
    19,356
    
    
    
    20,018
    
    
    
    20,211
    
    
    
    19,899Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    78,108
    
    
    $
    77,780
    
    
    $
    82,930
    
    
    $
    80,927
    
    
    $
    59,505Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.06
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Coverage deficiency (1)(2)(3)
    
    $
    (233,231
    )
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    (268,891
    )
    
    $
    (284,371
    )
    
    $
    (264,087
    )
 
 (1)
    
    The Companys Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges for 2009 includes a gain on
extinguishment debt of $38,873, a gain on sale of an equity investment of $5,259 and reflects
revenues received in connection with the delivery of raxibacumab to the Strategic National
Stockpile. These amounts should not be considered indicative of the Companys future performance.(2)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2008 includes a gain on the sale of an equity investment
of $32,518 partially offset by a charge for impaired investment of $6,284.(3)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2006 includes charges for facility-related exit charges
of $29,510 partially offset by a gain on the sale of an equity investment of $14,759.