alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.2
                                    a21, Inc
                            One Embarcadero Center,
                            Suite 500 San Francisco,
                                California 94111
                                 (415) 284-2121

                             CERTICATION 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 a21, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the period  ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albert Pleus, Chairman
of the Board 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) 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/ Albert Pleus
-------------------------------
Albert Pleus, Chairman
(Principal Financial Officer)



                                       17

<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 101

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008.

#### § 101.125 [Reserved]
#### § 778.411 Sixty-hour limit on pay guaranteed by contract.

The amount of weekly pay guaranteed may not exceed compensation due at the specified regular rate for the applicable maximum hours standard and at the specified overtime rate for the additional hours, not to exceed a total of 60 hours. Thus, if the maximum hours standard is 40 hours and the specified regular rate is $5 an hour the weekly guaranty cannot be greater than $350. This does not mean that an employee employed pursuant to a guaranteed pay contract under this section may not work more than 60 hours in any week; it means merely that pay in an amount sufficient to compensate for a greater number of hours cannot be covered by the guaranteed pay. If he works in excess of 60 hours he must be paid, for each hour worked in excess of 60, overtime compensation as provided in the contract, in addition to the guaranteed amount.

[46 FR 7317, Jan. 23, 1981]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 22, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00105

- CV

Troy STEVENS d/b/a Real Estate Workshop, Cory Wadsworth, and MJ Augie Bove,

Appellants

v.

Cory SMITH

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV09409

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION. Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file their b rief is

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee Cory Smith recover his costs on appeal from Appellants

Troy Stevens d/b/a Real Estate Workshop, Cory Wadsworth, and MJ Augie Bove.

It is so ORDERED on September 22, 2021

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of September, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010.

2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### § 1.07-1 Purpose.

This part describes procedures for enforcement and administration of all statutory penalty provisions that the Coast Guard is authorized to enforce.
Opinion issued April 2, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00262-CV

———————————

HORACE BRIDGES, Appellant

V.

LANNETTE LINTHICUM, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 79222-I

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Horace Bridges, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to 

file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant 

did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary 
2

dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. 

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.
EXHIBIT
32


STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent G. Townsend,
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,
that:





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





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.














Date:   August
4, 2009  
                                               By:   /s/ John B.
Dicus


John
B. Dicus, Chairman, President and


Chief
Executive Officer











Date:   August
4,
2009                                 
                By:   /s/ Kent G.
Townsend


Kent
G. Townsend, Executive Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer
#### WILLIAMS v DIXON & SON

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Wood Co

No. 466.

Decided December 2, 1929

Messrs. Atmur & Atmur, Lima, for Williams.

Messrs. B. A. Myers, Celina, and Ray D. Avery, Bowling Green, for Dixon & Son.

RICHARDS, J.

The evidence shows that Glen Williams and Melvin Wade, each under 21 years of age. had driven the car from Delphos to Toledo two or three days before the collision. The evidence all shows that they were on a pleasure trip.. They spent a couple of days in Toledo in company with some lady friends over the Fourth of July and on the return trip, about five o’clock in the morning of July 6th, the collision occurred while Glen. Williams was lying on the seat of the car asleep and it was being driven by. Melvin Wade. The negligence of these parties can not be seriously questioned. Neither can there be any doubt that this negligence proximately caused the collision. The record, however is devoid of evidence tending to show that Glen Williams was acting as agent fo:r his father. The car belonged to the father but the son was permitted to use it for his own purposes when he saw fit, and the record shows that he had taken it on this occasion without the knowledge of his father and for his own pleasure.

It is claimed by the plaintiff that the son and his companion had gone to Toledo to get some automobile parts for the father, but we find no competent evidence in the record tending to show that. Declarations of a claimed agent do not prove agency. The liability of a father for the negligent operation of a car by his son does not arise simply from the family relationship, and unless it appear that the son was at the time acting as aspnt for the father, there can be no liability. Because of this condition of the record, the motion of the defendant for a directed verdict should have been granted.

The judgment will be reversed and final judgment entered for plaintiff in error.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
[671 NE2d 1267, 648 NYS2d 870]

#### Anthony Silvestri, Respondent, v Gerald J. Smallberg, Appellant.

Decided September 12, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kenneth Mauro,*Great Neck, for appellant.

*Warner & Joselson,*New York City *(Jonathon D. Warner*of counsel) for respondent.

*1005OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The issue presented in this action to recover damages for medical malpractice is whether postjudgment interest accrues on awards for future damages when such awards are paid in a structured judgment pursuant to CPLR 50-A. We answer this question in the affirmative. The Court’s decision in *Rohring v City of Niagara Falls*(84 NY2d 60) is controlling here. The underlying rationale of *Rohring*— that a defendant is liable for the full amount of the judgment at the time of the verdict and that the structured payment provisions of CPLR articles 50-A and 50-B do not delay liability, but merely make payment of the judgment incremental *(see,*84 NY2d, at 69-70) — applies with equal force to postjudgment interest under CPLR 5003 as it does to postverdict interest under CPLR 5002. The difference in statutory language between sections 5002 and 5003 does not require a contrary result.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
### Artificial recharge in Oregon and Washington 1962

By: Don PriceD. H. HartB. L. Foxworthy

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1594C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Artificial recharge to ground water in Oregon and Washington(1957)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Second Amendment to Amended Supply Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED SUPPLY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is made as of February 23, 2012 by and between DSW Leased Business Division LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (“DSW Leased”), successor by assignment
of DSW Inc., an Ohio corporation (“DSW”), each having a business address of 810 DSW Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43219, and Stein Mart, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Stein Mart”) with a business address of 1200 Riverplace
Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. 
 Background 

A.    DSW and Stein Mart entered into an Amended and Restated Supply Agreement, dated as of May 30, 2006 (the
“Agreement”), whereby Supplier agreed to supply Merchandise to Stein Mart. 
 B.    DSW and Stein
Mart entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement, dated August 26, 2008, whereby the parties agreed to extend the term of the Agreement. 
 C.    DSW assigned to DSW Leased, its wholly-owned subsidiary, all of its right title and interest under the Agreement, effective as of January 27, 2012. 

D.    The parties desire to further amend the Agreement on the terms set forth in this Amendment. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Amendment, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, each intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 
 1.    Definitions. Defined terms used in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

2.    Term. Section 7.1 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following in lieu thereof:

 7.1 Basic Term and Renewals. The term of this Agreement shall commence on May 30, 2006 and shall continue until
December 31, 2014 (the “Initial Term”). Upon the expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically be extended for additional periods of one (1) year each (each such period shall be referred to as a “Renewal
Period”) unless either party gives the other written notice of its intent not to renew the Agreement at least two hundred and seventy (270) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or applicable Renewal Period. 

3. Agreement in Effect. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. 
 4. Controlling Law. This Amendment and all questions relating to its validity, interpretation, performance and
enforcement (including, without limitation, provisions concerning limitations of actions), shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment by their duly
authorized officers as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	Supplier:
	
	DSW LEASED BUSINESS DIVISION LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/Chris Lanning
	Title:	 	SVP & GM LBD


  

			
	Stein Mart:
	
	STEIN MART, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ D. Hunt Hawkins
	Title:	 	EVP & COO
#### § 779.207 Related activities in retail operations.

In the case of an enterprise which has one or more retail or service establishments, all of the activities which are performed for the furtherance of the common business purpose of operating the retail or service establishments are “related activities.” It is not material that the enterprise sells different goods or provides different services, or that it operates separate retail or service establishments. As stated in the definition, the enterprise includes all related activities whether performed “in one or more establishments.” Since the activities performed by one retail or service establishment are the “same or similar” to the activities performed by another, they are, as such, “related activities.” (See Senate Report No. 145, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. p. 41.) For example, in operations of a single retailing business a drug store may sell a large variety of different products, and a grocery store may sell clothing and furniture and other goods. Clearly all of these activities are “related.” Similarly it is clear that all activities of a department store are “related activities,” even if the store sells a great variety of different types of goods and services and even if, as in some cases, the departmentalized business is conducted in more than one location, as where the department selling garden supplies or electrical appliances is located on separate premises. Whether on the same premises or at separate locations, the activities involved in retail selling of goods or services, of any type, are related activities and they will be considered one enterprise where they are performed, through unified operation or common control, for a common business purpose.
EXHIBIT 12



              KERR-McGEE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



(In millions of dollars)    1995   1994    1993   1992    1991

Income (loss) from
 continuing operations      $(24)  $ 69    $ 95   $(12)   $ 85

Add -
 Provision (benefit) for
   income taxes              (43)    29      50    (31)     53
 Interest expense             61     58      47     66      78
 Rental expense representa-
   tive of interest factor     4      4       4      5       5

     Earnings               $ (2)  $160    $196   $ 28    $221

Fixed Charges -
 Interest expense           $ 61   $ 58    $ 47   $ 66    $ 78
 Rental expense representa-
   tive of interest factor     4      4       4      5       5
 Interest capitalized         11     10      20     15      16

     Total fixed charges    $ 76   $ 72    $ 71   $ 86    $ 99

Ratio of earnings to fixed
 charges                       -(1) 2.2     2.8      -(1)  2.2



(1)Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $78 million and
   $58 million in 1995 and 1992, respectively.

<PAGE>
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04 331A0 26
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00280-CV

ANNABELLE VEVERKA APPELLANT

V.

JUSTIN DENAPOLI APPELLEE

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

The trial court signed a final order granting Appellee Justin Denapoli’s 

motion for summary judgment on December 10, 2010. Appellant Annabelle 

Veverka timely filed a motion for new trial on January 7, 2011, which extended

the deadline to file the notice of appeal until ninety days after December 10, 

2010, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), but she did not file the notice of appeal until

July 29, 2011, over four months beyond the expiration of the ninety-day period. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

To the extent that Veverka attempts to appeal from the June 29, 2011 order 

denying her motion for new trial, the trial court’s plenary power expired after 105 

days from the date the trial court signed the order granting Denapoli’s motion for 

summary judgment; therefore, the order denying Veverka’s motion for new trial is 

void. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c), (e).

On August 12, 2011, we notified Veverka of our concern that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

We informed Veverka that the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction 

unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court on or 

before August 22, 2011, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Veverka filed a motion to retain the appeal, which we construe as her response, 

but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in the court of 

appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 

(Tex. 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: September 29, 2011
§ 530.12 Special provisions. ( a ) *Gloves and mittens industry.* Any certificate issued to an industrial homeworker by the New York State Department of Labor under paragraph II of Home Work Order No. 4 Restricting Industrial Homework in the Glove Industry, dated June 28, 1941, will be given effect by the Administrator as a certificate permitting the employment of the homeworker under the terms of § 530.4 for the period during which such certificate shall continue in force.
( b ) *Jewelry manufacturing industry.* Nothing contained in the regulations in this part shall be construed to prohibit the employment, as homeworkers, of American Indians residing on the Navajo, Pueblo, and Hopi Indian Reservations, who are engaged in producing genuine hand-fashioned jewelry on the Indian reservations mentioned, provided the employment of such homeworker is in conformity with the following conditions: ( 1 ) That each employer of one or more Indian homeworkers engaged in making hand-fashioned jewelry on these Indian reservations shall submit in duplicate to the regional office of the Wage and Hour Division for the region in which the employer's place of business is located, on April 1, August 1, and December 1 of each year, the name and address of such employee engaged during the preceding 4-month period in making hand-fashioned jewelry on Indian reservations;
( 2 ) That each employer of one or more Indian homeworkers engaged in making hand-fashioned jewelry on these Indian reservations shall file copies of the piece rates in duplicate with the regional office of the Wage and Hour Division for the region in which the employer's place of business is located on April 1, August 1, and December 1 of each year, and
( 3 ) That each employer of one or more Indian homeworkers engaged in making hand-fashioned jewelry on these Indian reservations shall keep, maintain, and have available for inspection by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative at any time, records and reports showing with respect to each of the homeworkers engaged in making hand-fashioned jewelry on these Indian reservations, the following information: ( i ) Name of the homeworker.
( ii ) Address of the homeworker.
( iii ) Date of birth of the homeworker, if under 19 years of age.
( iv ) Description of work performed.
( v ) Amount of cash wage payments made to the homeworker for each pay period.
( vi ) Date of such payment.
( vii ) Schedule of piece rates paid.
These records shall be kept by each employer for each of the employer's homeworkers engaged in making hand-fashioned jewelry on Indian reservations, as provided in this section, in lieu of the records required under §§ 516.2 and 516.31 of this chapter: *Provided, however,* That nothing in this section shall relieve an employer from maintaining all other records required by part 516 of this chapter. [24 FR 729, Feb. 3, 1959, as amended at 43 FR 28470, June 30, 1978]
§ 110.87 Henderson Harbor, N.Y. ( a ) *Area A.* The area in the southern portion of Henderson Harbor west of the Henderson Harbor Yacht Club bounded by a line beginning at latitude 43°51′08.8′′ N, longitude 76°12′08.9′′ W, thence to latitude 43°51′09.0′′ N, longitude 76°12′19.0′′ W, thence to latitude 43°51′33.4′′ N, longitude 76°12′19.0′′ W, thence to latitude 43°51′33.4′′ N, longitude 76°12′09.6′′ W, thence to the point of beginning. All nautical positions are based on North American Datum of 1983.
( b ) *Area B.* The area in the southern portion of Henderson Harbor north of Graham Creek Entrance Light bounded by a line beginning at latitude 43°51′21.8′′ N, longitude 76°11′58.2′′ W, thence to latitude 43°51′21.7′′ N, longitude 76°12′05.5′′ W, thence to latitude 43°51′33.4′′ N, longitude 76°12′06.2′′ W, thence to latitude 43°51′33.6′′ N, longitude 76°12′00.8′′ W, thence to the point of beginning. All nautical positions are based on North American Datum of 1983.
[CGD09-99-081, 65 FR 11893, Mar. 7, 2000, as amended by USCG-2009-0854, 74 FR 49815, Sept. 29, 2009]