alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
05/25/201 0 09:5 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0001/00 1
Brav o Aviatio n TOOOMerril l AveSuilc3 l chinoC A 9171 0 L;- ! O'^-F'":^^09WOi' ' Phon e 909-606-860 5 J-a x 909-606-863 9 - ' "

Dea r Si r Hearin g Docket , FAA,AGC , Roo m2014 , 60 0 Independenc e Ave.S W Washington , DC 2059 1 AUention : Hearin g Docke t Cler k Aircratl i n Contentio n N843 5 I , a195 9 Cessn a182B 2008SO09005 4 , Jun e 25 , 200 8 (allege dviolatio n date ) f^P\f)S O ^^^ ^ / J20/O ' ^ 32- ^ C C Eddi e L
. Thoma s Regiona l Counse l And : Christophe r

R
. Stevenso n Attorne y Offic e o f Th e Regiona l Counse l Re : Appea

l reques t agains t a n actio n -Notic e o f

Propose d Civi l Penalty fromth e FA/ V To asses s acivi l penalty i n th e amount o f $10,72 5 agains t

Brav o Aviatio n c/

o Robert Cullen Pleas e accep t

m y reques t fo r thi s appea

l o n th e basi s iha

l i t i s unfair , an d excessive
. I hav e alread y offeredl o settl e thi s for $100 0 whic h wa s refused
. M Y LAS T AND FINA L OFFERT O SETTLE TFTL S I S FIR M A T $2500

. I f

thi s offe r i s accepte dI woul dexpec t

asettlemen t

agreemen t

tha t say s pai d i n ful

l on th e receip t

oJ'my cashitjfs/heck
. 

# %l^^^<^ ' Rober t J
. Culle n Apri l 27 , 201 0
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40725

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARGARITO BENITEZ-SALAZAR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-419-4

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Margarito Benitez-Salazar (Benitez) appeals the four-month sentence

imposed following the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised

release. He argues that by imposing this sentence to run consecutively to a

separate term of imprisonment, the district court imposed a sentence greater

than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40725

2

Because Benitez did not object on this basis below, we review for plain

error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert.

denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008); United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th

Cir. 2007). To establish plain error, Benitez must show (1) that there was error,

(2) that the error was clear or obvious, and (3) that the error affected his

substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993).

Even if Benitez establishes those factors, we will not exercise our discretion to

correct the forfeited error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. at 736.

The district court had the authority, after consideration of the § 3553(a)

factors, to order Benitez’s revocation sentence to run consecutively to the

sentence imposed for his illegal reentry offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b); see

also United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001). The policy

statements in the Sentencing Guidelines also recommend the imposition of

consecutive sentences. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s.

In addition, the district court gave reasons for its sentence consistent with the

§ 3553(a) factors. We conclude that Benitez has failed to establish any error,

plain or otherwise.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 347.205 Record maintenance.

The records of each insured branch shall be kept as though it were a separate entity, with its assets and liabilities separate from the other operations of the head office, other branches or agencies of the foreign bank and its subsidiaries or affiliates. Each insured branch must keep a set of accounts and records in the words and figures of the English language that accurately reflects the business transactions of the insured branch on a daily basis. A foreign bank that has more than one insured branch in a state may treat such insured branches as one entity for record-keeping purposes and may designate one branch to maintain records for all the branches in the state.
#### KOURY v. VOGEL et al.

No. 30730.

Oct. 20, 1942.

*130 P. 2d 93.*

Edgerton & Vickers, of Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.

W. V. Pryor, of Sapulpa, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

At the conclusion of the opening statement of counsel for the defendant plaintiff moved for, and the court granted, a judgment upon the pleadings and opening statement of counsel. The order and judgment from which the appeal is taken was entered under date of June 3, 1941. Thereafter plaintiff in error filed a motion for new trial, which was determined by the trial court on June 16, 1941. Apparently it is the attempt of the plaintiff in error to appeal from the order overruling the motion for new trial. If it is his intention to appeal from the judgment, the cause was not filed within six months from the date of the order entered thereon by the trial court. The appeal must be dismissed. Burdett v. Burdett, 26 Okla. 416, 109 P. 922; Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 48 Okla. 156, 149 P. 1136; Dickson v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 174 Okla. 335, 50 P. 2d 335. In Dickson v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., supra, it is stated:

> “Where judgment is rendered upon the pleadings and opening statement of counsel, the filing and determination of a motion for new trial serves no purpose to extend the time In which the *375appeal may be filed past the six months from the rendition of the judgment upon said pleadings and opening statement.”

The appeal is dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., and OSBORN, BAY-LESS, GIBSON, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.
Editorial Note on Part 723
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 723 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 723.5 Collateral and security. ( a ) A federally insured credit union must require collateral commensurate with the level of risk associated with the size and type of any commercial loan. Collateral must be sufficient to ensure adequate loan balance protection along with appropriate risk sharing with the borrower and principal(s). A federally insured credit union making an unsecured loan must determine and document in the loan file that mitigating factors sufficiently offset the relevant risk.
( b ) A federally insured credit union that does not require the full and unconditional personal guarantee from the principal(s) of the borrower who has a controlling interest in the borrower must determine and document in the loan file that mitigating factors sufficiently offset the relevant risk. ( 1 ) *Transitional provision.* A federally insured credit union that, between May 13, 2016 and January 1, 2017, makes a member business loan and does not require the full and unconditional personal guarantee from the principal(s) of the borrower who has a controlling interest in the borrower is not required to seek a waiver from the requirement for personal guarantee, but it must determine and document in the loan file that mitigating factors sufficiently offset the relevant risk.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
PUBLIC LAW 110–51—JULY 31, 2007 121 STAT. 263

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1868:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):

July 24, considered and passed Senate.

July 25, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 110–51

110th Congress

An Act

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Higher Education Extension Act of 2007’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005

(Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking

‘‘July 31, 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘October 31, 2007’’.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension

Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit

or otherwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the

durations of, programs contained in the amendments made by the

Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–

171) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and

the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

Approved July 31, 2007.

20 USC 1001

note.

20 USC 1001

note.

Second Higher

Education

Extension Act

of 2007.

July 31, 2007

[S. 1868]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22658-1 Filed:10/18/22 Entered:10/20/22 18:46:46 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF
                             THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


     In  conjunction  with the annual  report of Sharps  Compliance  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the years ended June 30, 2006 and 2005,  as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  I, David P.
Tusa, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that

          (1)  The Form  10-KSB  report for the years  ended  June 30,  2006 and
               2005,  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on
               September  13, 2006,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
               Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  and  Exchange  Act of
               1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-KSB report for the years
               ended June 30, 2006 and 2005  fairly  presents,  in all  material
               respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of
               Sharps Compliance Corp.



Date: September 13, 2006

                                        By:  /s/ DAVID P. TUSA

                                        David P. Tusa
                                        Executive Vice President,
                                        Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Business Development and
                                        Corporate Secretary




                                      F-24
Exhibit 32


           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, 2004 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 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 11, 2004

                                       1
**Exhibit 10.5**

 

**ICAGEN, INC.**

 

**Summary of Director Compensation**

 

**Compensation of our Directors**

 

Icagen, Inc. reimburses each non-employee director for out-of-pocket expenses they incur in attending Board and committee meetings and pays eachnon-employee director an annual retainer fee of $25,000. The chairman of the Company’s audit committee receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000 and other committee chairmen receive an additional annual retainer of $3,000. In addition,the Company pays each non-employee director $1,000 for attendance at each Board meeting in which he or she participates in person or $500 if attendance is by telephone. Each non-employee director also receives $1,000 for each meeting of a committeeof the Board that he or she participates in person or $500 if attendance is by telephone that is held on a day other than the day of the date of any meeting of the full Board of Directors. Directors who are also the Company’s employees do notreceive any compensation in their capacities as directors. 

 

Each of the Company’s non-employee directors receives options to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for his or her services as a director for each three-year term served. Options for the Company’s currentdirectors are granted every three calendar years as of the first business day of the calendar year. Options for new directors will be granted as of the date of the election or appointment of the director to the board of directors. Options granted tothe non-employee directors vest monthly over three years, subject to the director’s continued service as a director.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Transmittal of Record to the Court of Appeals 

PENDING 

DATE: December 28, 2022 

BK Case: 17-3283 LTS (Jointly Administered) (PROMESA)

APPEAL FEE PAID ($505): YES X _ NO 

CASE CAPTION: In re: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS: YES NO X 

MOTIONS PENDING: YES NO X _

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: Madeline Acevedo Camacho

APPEAL FROM: Order Denying Motions Requesting Allowance and Payment of 

Administrative Expense Claims Filed by Wage Claimants entered on 11/3/2022.

SPECIAL COMMENTS: Copies of original documents. 

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDED AS THE RECORD ON APPEAL: 

Docket Entries: 21194, 21195, 21224, 21227, 21230, 22799, 23154

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed documents contained herein are copies or the 

original pleadings as described above and constitute the record on appeal in the case. 

Agnes Ferrer-Auffant, Esq. 

Acting Clerk of Court 

S/Idnar Diaz

Idnar Diaz

Deputy Clerk 

Acknowledgment of Receipt: 

Received By: ________________ 

USCCA #: ________________ s/c: CM/ECF Parties, Appeals Clerk

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23171 Filed:12/28/22 Entered:12/28/22 16:38:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00442

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF K.A., M.A., AND

P.G., C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 360th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 360

- 699440

- 21 )

March 9, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the order of the trial court is

affirm ed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Adelphia Communications Corp. for the three
months ended June 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADLEPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,413<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,378,597<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,708,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,637,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           306
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,274,251)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,708,795
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,644
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (70)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,661)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,300
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,361)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.54)
<FN>
<F1>Receivables netted with Allowance
<F2>PP&E netted with Depreciation
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
|   | (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 Buckeye. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated this 27th day of August, 2009               |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |
|                                              |   |
| /s/ Steven G. Dean                                |   |
| Steven G. Dean                                    |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
MEMORANDUM  OF  UNDERSTANDING

Tagalder  (2000)  Incorporated  ("Tagalder")
At  44  Addington  Cres.,  Bramalea  Ontario,  Canada  L6T  2R3

And

Hunter  Farm  ("Hunter")
At  5360  Thickson  Rod,  N.,  Brooklin,  Ontario,  Canada

Have  reached a memorandum of understanding that Tagalder agrees to purchase and
Hunter  aggres  to  sell  800  emu  eggs in the amount of C$72,000 at a price of
C$90.00 per piece FOB from Hunter Farm under the following terms and conditions:

1.     The price includes all quarantine cost incurred by the producing farm but
not  include  the  quarantine  expenses  required  from  Chinese and or Canadian
government, in which the Chinese government may require sending Chinese officers
to  visit  the  producing  farm.

2.     The purchaser must arrange their own transportation and insurance for the
transportation  of  the  emu  eggs.  The sellers will not be responsible for any
damage  during  the  transportation.

3.     The  shipping  schedule  is  set  out  as:

       Date        The  Farm          Quantity

       2001/02     Canada               300
       2001/03     Canada               500
       Total                            800

4.  It  is  agreed  that  the  quantity  and  shipping  schedule can be adjusted
according  to  the  practical  situation.

This  Memorandum of Understanding is signed in Ontario, Canada on the 27th date,
November  2000.

Seller:
By: /s/ signature unknown
------------------------------
Hunter  Farm
At  5360  Thickson  Rod,  N.,  Brooklin,  Ontario,  Canada

Purchaser:
By: /s/ Ming-Ngok Lam
-------------------------------
Tagalder  (2000)  Incorporated
At  44  Addington  Cres.,  Bramalea  Ontario,  Canada  L6T  2R3


<PAGE>
§ 313.54 Exception to due process procedures. ( a ) The procedures set forth in this subpart shall not apply to routine intra-agency salary adjustments of pay, including the following: ( 1 ) Any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's election of coverage or a change in coverage under a federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay, if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less;
( 2 ) A routine adjustment of pay that is made to correct an overpayment attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays in processing pay documents, if the overpayment occurred within the four pay periods preceding the adjustment and, at the time of such adjustment or as soon thereafter as is practical, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and the point of contact for contesting such adjustment; or
( 3 ) Any adjustment to collect a debt amount to $50 or less, if, at the time of such adjustment, or as soon thereafter as is practical, the individual is provided written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and the point of contact for contesting such adjustment.
( b ) The procedure for notice to the employee and collection of such adjustments is set forth in § 313.55.