alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit E 

Second Interim Fee Period (June 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022)

Total Invoiced

Date Submitted Monthly Period Covered Professional Fees Low High

7/20/2022 06/01/22 ‐ 06/30/22   $171,539.00 $228,410.00 $300,540.00

8/26/2022 07/01/22 ‐ 07/31/22 $118,889.00 $188,867.00 $269,810.00

9/28/2022 08/01/22 ‐ 08/31/22 $89,617.00 $171,386.00 $263,670.00

11/3/2022 09/01/22 ‐ 09/30/22   $44,260.00 $144,365.00 $222,100.00

$424,305.00 $733,028.00 $1,056,120.00

Budget Range

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22876-5 Filed:11/15/22 Entered:11/15/22 19:58:35 Desc:

Exhibit E Page 1 of 1
*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-10615

Summary Calendar

J. M. MITCHELL; THOMAS C. MOORE,

Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellees,

VERSUS

THE CADLE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation,

Defendant - Counter Claimant -

Cross Claimant - Appellant,

COMBINED FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Defendant - Cross Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(2:94-CV-353)

December 6, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Cadle Company appeals a judgment against
it in this case brought under the federal and Texas fair debt

collection statutes. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a et seq; TEX. REV. CIV. STAT.

ANN. art. 5069-11.01 et seq. The jury found in favor of plaintiffs

J. M. Mitchell and Thomas C. Moore, awarding the pair $5,000 each

in actual damages, $20,000 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the record excerpts

and relevant portions of the record, we are persuaded that the

district court committed no reversible error. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
§ 308.133 Effective date of, and payment under, an order to pay. ( a ) *Effective date.* ( 1 ) Unless otherwise provided in the Notice, except in situations covered by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, civil penalties assessed pursuant to this subpart are due and payable 60 days after the Notice is served upon the respondent.
( 2 ) If the respondent both requests a hearing and serves an answer, civil penalties assessed pursuant to this subpart are due and payable 60 days after an order to pay, issued after the hearing or upon default, is served upon the respondent, unless the order provides for a different period of payment. Civil penalties assessed pursuant to an order to pay issued upon consent are due and payable within the time specified therein.
( b ) *Payment.* All penalties collected under this section shall be paid over to the Treasury of the United States.
Dear Mr. Russell:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−3199). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 11/26/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

Contacts:         Stephen P. Brock                     Joel Pomerantz
                  Baldwin Piano                        The Dilenschneider Group
                  (513) 576-4648                       (212) 922-0900

                       BALDWIN PIANO & ORGAN COMPANY SELLS
               CHURCH ORGAN DIVISION TO DUANE KUHN WHO HEADED UNIT

         LOVELAND, OH, March 11 -- Baldwin Piano & Organ Company, (NASDAQ:BPAO)
which celebrates its 135th anniversary this year, said today it has agreed to
sell its Church Organ Systems division to Kuhn Keyboards, Inc., a corporation
organized by Duane Kuhn, a former Baldwin vice president, who had formerly
headed the unit. Sale terms were not disclosed.

         Karen L. Hendricks, Baldwin's president, chairman and chief executive,
said "the divestiture reflects our ongoing effort to focus on Baldwin's core
Music Products -- acoustic and digital pianos.

         "Sales of church organs in 1996 were a relatively small portion of our
music business, and the unit is not central to our plans going forward," Ms.
Hendricks said. "Duane Kuhn is a highly experienced manager who knows this
segment of the business. I'm sure the dealer network will be well served by
Duane and his team."

         Mr. Kuhn said: "Our offer to acquire Baldwin's Church Organ Systems
operation is based on the growth opportunities available in servicing the music
ministry market; we will expand our product line and services so that our dealer
organization will become a resource center for music ministry programs."

         In 1996 the National Association of Pastoral Musicians recognized Kuhn
and Baldwin Church Organ Systems with an award for outstanding service to church
musicians.

                                     -more-


<PAGE>   2


                                       -2-

         Sale of the Church Organ Systems unit is conditioned upon approval of
Baldwin's principal lender, which is anticipated shortly.

         Baldwin Piano & Organ Company has manufactured and marketed keyboard
musical products for 135 years and has been providing consumer financing for its
instruments for nearly a century. The market leader in acoustic pianos in the
United States, Baldwin also manufactures electronic and electro-mechanical
components for Original Equipment Manufacturers.

                                      # # #

March 11, 1997
GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                            SURPLUS NOTE

Golden American Life Insurance Company agrees to pay Equitable Life
Insurance Company of Iowa corporation, the sum of $60 million
($60,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of 7.25%  per annum from the
date hereof, December 30, 1998 until paid.  In any event, this note
will mature on December 29, 2028.

This Surplus Note and accrued interest thereon shall be subordinate to
payments due to policyholders, claimant and beneficiary claims, as well
as debts owed to all other classes of debtors, other than surplus note
holders, of Golden American Life Insurance Company in the event of (a)
the institution of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or
liquidation proceedings by or against Golden American Life Insurance
Company, or (b) the appointment of a Trustee, receiver or other
Conservator for a substantial part of Golden American Life Insurance
Company properties.

Any payments made shall first apply to accrued interest, and the
balance of such payment shall apply to reduce the principal of this
Note.

Any payment of principal and/or interest made shall be subject to the
prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.  If the
Commissioner has not approved payment of principal to retire the note
prior to its maturity date, the maturity date will be automatically
extended until such time as the Commissioner authorizes payment of the
final balance of principal.

Golden American Life Insurance Company hereby waives presentment and
notice of dishonor.

In witness whereof, Golden American Life Insurance Company has caused
this Note to be executed and delivered.


                                GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                                By: /s/ Stephen J. Preston
                                   --------------------------------
                                     Stephen J. Preston, Executive
                                         Vice President


Attest by:


/s/ David L. Jacobson
-------------------------
David L. Jacobson
Senior Vice President and
  Assistant Secretary
§ 37.3 Prohibited practices. ( a ) *Anti-tying.* A national bank may not extend credit nor alter the terms or conditions of an extension of credit conditioned upon the customer entering into a debt cancellation contract or debt suspension agreement with the bank.
( b ) *Misrepresentations generally.* A national bank may not engage in any practice or use any advertisement that could mislead or otherwise cause a reasonable person to reach an erroneous belief with respect to information that must be disclosed under this part.
( c ) *Prohibited contract terms.* A national bank may not offer debt cancellation contracts or debt suspension agreements that contain terms: ( 1 ) Giving the bank the right unilaterally to modify the contract unless: ( i ) The modification is favorable to the customer and is made without additional charge to the customer; or
( ii ) The customer is notified of any proposed change and is provided a reasonable opportunity to cancel the contract without penalty before the change goes into effect; or
( 2 ) Requiring a lump sum, single payment for the contract payable at the outset of the contract, where the debt subject to the contract is a residential mortgage loan.
**Exhibit 99.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Natuzzi S.p.A. (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
Dated: June 30, 2004                      /s/ Pasquale Natuzzi   Name:  Pasquale Natuzzi   Title:  Chief Executive Officer   
Dated: June 30, 2004                      /s/ Giuseppe Desantis   Name:  Giuseppe Desantis   Title:  General Manager
§ 704.17 State-chartered corporate credit unions. ( a ) This part does not expand the powers and authorities of any state-chartered corporate credit union, beyond those powers and authorities provided under the laws of the state in which it was chartered.
( b ) A state-chartered corporate credit union that is not insured by the NCUSIF, but that receives funds from federally insured credit unions, is considered an “institution-affiliated party” within the meaning of Section 206(r) of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1786(r).
( c ) NCUA will notify, consult with, and provide explanation to the appropriate state supervisory authority before taking administrative action against a state-chartered corporate credit union.
#### PUTNAM’S EXECUTOR *v.*CLARH.

Setoff — notice—act dispensing with proof — act of limitations of this and other states — pleading and evidence.

An offset must be me made in this state by notice, it cannot be pleaded.

The statute dispensing with proof in certain cases, does not apply to matters introduced under a setoff.

A right of action accrued to parties in another state, is barred by the limitation laws of that state.'

When questions of limitation arise under a notice of setoff, they are to be determined by proof not by pleading.

Debt, on a note dated in November, 1815. Plea nil debet with notice of setoff. After plaintiff had rested—

*Fox,*for the defendant,

offered under the notice, an account with evidence that it had been presented to the plaintiff, and that he said he would allow $§50, and also a note without proof of execution.

*King,*for the plaintiff,

objects to the account, that it was barred by the statute of limitations in six years. The action accrued in Massachusetts, and he produced an authenticated copy of the act of that state. He insisted, that if the defendant would bring himself within any exception of the act, he should have pleaded the statute and shown the exception.

*Fox,*contra.

Lane, J.

An offset under our law, must come in under notice, it cannot be pleaded. The statute dispensing with proof, does not reach the admission of evidence under a *notice,*and therefore does not apply to this case. The account by the Massachusetts law- is barred, and that act under the provisions of our law governs the case. These questions when they arise under a notice, are to be determined by proof, not by plea.

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
#### § 390.309 Security.

The term *security* means any non-withdrawable account, note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a *security,* or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing, except that a *security* shall not include an account or deposit insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20740 Summary Calendar

DEAN PURCELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH FEINBERG, Special Master; THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CV-262

-------------------- January 24, 2003 Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dean Purcell filed a claim challenging the constitutionality of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (“the Fund”) created by the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-42, §§ 401-409, 115 Stat. 230, 237-41 (2001). The district court concluded that Purcell lacked standing to bring his claim; thus, the court lacked jurisdiction.No. 02-20740 -2- Purcell appeals the district court’s judgment of dismissal under

F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(1). This court reviews issues of standing de novo. See Maiz v. Verani , 311 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 2002). To establish taxpayer standing a plaintiff must: 1) “allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution;” and 2) “show the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8.” See Flast v. Cohen , 392 U.S. 83, 102-03 (1968). In cases not alleging an Establishment Clause violation, taxpayer standing requires that the plaintiff allege “direct injury.” Henderson v. Stalder , 287 F.3d 374, 381 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002). Purcell argues that Congress in providing for local charity has violated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by “trespassing on areas of authority reserved to the people or the state,” and has violated the Fifth Amendment by depriving him of property without due process of the law and by taking his private property for public use. Purcell’s arguments are analogous to those made by the plaintiff in Frothingham v. Mellon , 262 U.S. 447 (1923). See Flast , 392 U.S. at 91-92, 105-06. They do not suffice to confer standing, as no “direct injury” is alleged. Id. at 92.No. 02-20740 -3- Purcell also argues that the Fund violates the Equal Protection Clause by compensating some victims of crime but not others. Purcell bears the burden of establishing standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Purcell has not established that he has suffered an injury in fact or that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Thus, the district court did not err when it dismissed Purcell’s claim for his lack of standing. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3504 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3504

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to 
 redesignate the American Indian Education Foundation as the National 
           Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION FOUNDATION.

    (a) Redesignation.--Section 501(a) of title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458bbb(a)), as 
added by Public Law 106-568, is amended by striking ``the American 
Indian Education Foundation'' and inserting ``a foundation to be known 
as the `National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education' 
(hereinafter referred to as the `Foundation')''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458bbb), as added 
by Public Law 106-568, is amended--
            (1) in the heading to read as follows:

``TITLE V--NATIONAL FUND FOR EXCELLENCE IN AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION'';

        and
            (2) in the heading of section 501 to read as follows:

``SEC. 501. NATIONAL FUND FOR EXCELLENCE IN AMERICAN INDIAN 
              EDUCATION.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 747

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 747.41 Stays pending judicial review.

The commencement of proceedings for judicial review of a final decision and order of the NCUA Board may not, unless specifically ordered by the NCUA Board or a reviewing court, operate as a stay of any order issued by the NCUA Board. The NCUA Board may, in the NCUA Board's discretion, and on such terms as the NCUA Board finds just, stay the effectiveness of all or any part of an order pending a final decision on a petition for review of that order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                                     Canadian dollars

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1.466
<CASH>                                            976,090
<SECURITIES>                                      258,623
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,999,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                      224,000
<INVENTORY>                                       236,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                6,228,679
<PP&E>                                          8,288,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,150,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,200,378
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        10,917
<COMMON>                                          178,633
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,266,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,150,045
<SALES>                                         9,961,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                9,961,496
<CGS>                                           3,529,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,529,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                148,469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (455,862)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      223,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (675,931)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (675,931)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.24)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BACK YARD BURGERS, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the Annual Report of Back Yard Burgers, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Lattimore M. Michael
------------------------
Lattimore M. Michael
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
March 27, 2003