alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN HERITAGE LIFE INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           988,219
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      38,361
<MORTGAGE>                                      87,346
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      519
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,553,099
<CASH>                                          21,753
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              12,322
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         234,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,025,020
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                308,218
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             45,550
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  62,084
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,074,623
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 55,447
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          103,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,140
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,025,020
<PREMIUMS>                                     231,620
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             82,326
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 345
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,743
<BENEFITS>                                     143,836
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     29,357
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            92,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,122
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,122
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  58,484
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 20-1302: MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SANOFI MATURE IP [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
# Comments on: 2020-1994: Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Hirshfeld
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28


                           ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE


The maturity date of the attached Promissory Note dated October 9, 1997 for
$750,000.00 is extended to April 1, 1998 from February 28, 1998.

This Allonge will be governed by the terms and conditions of the Letter
Agreement dated August 4, 1997, as amended by the Loan Modification Agreement
dated as of October 9, 1997, by and between Fleet National Bank and Augment
Systems, Inc. Nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver, release or
amendment of any terms of the Letter Agreement.


_______________________________           ____________________________________
Witness                                   Name:
                                          Title:
                                          Augment Systems, Inc.
                                          Date:_______________________________



_______________________________           ____________________________________
Witness                                   Kimberly Martone
                                          Vice President
                                          Fleet National Bank
                                          Date:_______________________________
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00347

- CV

R OSANNA S ILVERIO AND A LVIN

G REEN

, Appellants

V

.

T RADITIONAL H ERITAGE V ILLAGE

H OMEOWNERS A SSOCIATION

, I NC

.
A / K / A H ERITAGE V ILLAGE

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 3 67th District Court

of Denton County ( 19

- 1706

- 367 )

August 20, 2020

Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

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

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that t he judgment of the

trial court is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. We reverse that

portion of the trial court’s judgment that awards attorney ’ s fees and remand this case

to the trial court for a determination of a reasonable and ne cessary attorney ’ s feeaward consistent with this opinion

. We affirm the remainder of the trial court ’ s

judgment.

It is further order ed that each part y sh all bear their own costs of this appeal

, for

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APP EALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: EXPEDIA, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-143

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-

cv-00309-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of Expedia, Inc. to voluntarily dismiss this petition,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 22-143 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2022
2 IN RE: EXPEDIA, INC.

The motion is granted to the extent that the petition is 

withdrawn.

April 21, 2022

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-143 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2022
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**PENNLYCO, LTD.**

**v.**

**INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

**CORPORATION**

**v.**

**SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY**

**PRODUCTION COMPANY**

**PETITION OF: PENNLYCO, LTD. :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 138 MAL 2016** 

**P etition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

ORDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**

DENIED

**.**
§ 302-4.700 What governing policies must we establish for payment of allowances for subsistence and transportation expenses? For payment of allowances for subsistence and transportation expenses, you must establish policy and procedures governing: ( a ) How you will implement the regulations throughout this part;
( b ) A reasonable minimum driving distance per day that may be more than, but not less than an average of 300 miles per calendar day when use of a POV is used for PCS travel and when you will authorize an exception;
( c ) Designation of an agency approving official who will authorize an exception to the daily minimum driving distance; and
( d ) When you will authorize the use of more than one POV for PCS travel.
§ 60-2.14 Determining availability. ( a ) Purpose: Availability is an estimate of the number of qualified minorities or women available for employment in a given job group, expressed as a percentage of all qualified persons available for employment in the job group. The purpose of the availability determination is to establish a benchmark against which the demographic composition of the contractor's incumbent workforce can be compared in order to determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity may exist within particular job groups.
( b ) The contractor must separately determine the availability of minorities and women for each job group.
( c ) In determining availability, the contractor must consider at least the following factors: ( 1 ) The percentage of minorities or women with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area. The reasonable recruitment area is defined as the geographical area from which the contractor usually seeks or reasonably could seek workers to fill the positions in question.
( 2 ) The percentage of minorities or women among those promotable, transferable, and trainable within the contractor's organization. Trainable refers to those employees within the contractor's organization who could, with appropriate training which the contractor is reasonably able to provide, become promotable or transferable during the AAP year.
( d ) The contractor must use the most current and discrete statistical information available to derive availability figures. Examples of such information include census data, data from local job service offices, and data from colleges or other training institutions.
( e ) The contractor may not draw its reasonable recruitment area in such a way as to have the effect of excluding minorities or women. For each job group, the reasonable recruitment area must be identified, with a brief explanation of the rationale for selection of that recruitment area.
( f ) The contractor may not define the pool of promotable, transferable, and trainable employees in such a way as to have the effect of excluding minorities or women. For each job group, the pool of promotable, transferable, and trainable employees must be identified with a brief explanation of the rationale for the selection of that pool.
( g ) Where a job group is composed of job titles with different availability rates, a composite availability figure for the job group must be calculated. The contractor must separately determine the availability for each job title within the job group and must determine the proportion of job group incumbents employed in each job title. The contractor must weight the availability for each job title by the proportion of job group incumbents employed in that job group. The sum of the weighted availability estimates for all job titles in the job group must be the composite availability for the job group.
No. 11-1163.

#### Mayfield *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11121.

#### Dodson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection
with the Annual Report of Capital Corp of the West (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Dale McKinney, Executive 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,
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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 11,
2005




/s/ R. Dale McKinney R. Dale McKinney Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


34

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 052400G]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of photography permit No. 980-1570.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Lonsdale Productions, 113 Fakenham 
Road, Great Ryburgh, Norfolk NR21 7AQ, United Kingdom, has been issued 
a permit to take by Level B harassment two species, gray whale 
(Eschrichtius robustus) and killer whale (Orcinus orca) of non-
threatened, non-endangered marine mammals for purposes of commercial 
photography.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, 709 W. 9<SUP>th</SUP> 
Street, Federal Building Room 461, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 
(907/586-7235).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 25, 2000, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (65 FR 24185) that the above-named applicant had 
submitted a request for a permit to take two species of marine mammals 
by Level B harassment during the course of commercial photographic 
activities in Alaska waters. The requested permit has been issued, 
under the authority of section 104(c)(6) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-16226 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### § 302-10.402 What costs must we pay a commercial carrier for transporting a mobile home?

The costs you must pay a commercial carrier for transporting a mobile home are prescribed in § 302-10.200.
No. 11-7668.

#### Livingston *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1416 Overlashing. ( a ) *Prior approval.* A utility shall not require prior approval for: ( 1 ) An existing attacher that overlashes its existing wires on a pole; or
( 2 ) For third party overlashing of an existing attachment that is conducted with the permission of an existing attacher.
( b ) *Preexisting violations.* A utility may not prevent an attacher from overlashing because another existing attacher has not fixed a preexisting violation. A utility may not require an existing attacher that overlashes its existing wires on a pole to fix preexisting violations caused by another existing attacher.
( c ) *Advance notice.* A utility may require no more than 15 days' advance notice of planned overlashing. If a utility requires advance notice for overlashing, then the utility must provide existing attachers with advance written notice of the notice requirement or include the notice requirement in the attachment agreement with the existing attacher. If after receiving advance notice, the utility determines that an overlash would create a capacity, safety, reliability, or engineering issue, it must provide specific documentation of the issue to the party seeking to overlash within the 15 day advance notice period and the party seeking to overlash must address any identified issues before continuing with the overlash either by modifying its proposal or by explaining why, in the party's view, a modification is unnecessary. A utility may not charge a fee to the party seeking to overlash for the utility's review of the proposed overlash.
( d ) *Overlashers' responsibility.* A party that engages in overlashing is responsible for its own equipment and shall ensure that it complies with reasonable safety, reliability, and engineering practices. If damage to a pole or other existing attachment results from overlashing or overlashing work causes safety or engineering standard violations, then the overlashing party is responsible at its expense for any necessary repairs.
( e ) *Post-overlashing review.* An overlashing party shall notify the affected utility within 15 days of completion of the overlash on a particular pole. The notice shall provide the affected utility at least 90 days from receipt in which to inspect the overlash. The utility has 14 days after completion of its inspection to notify the overlashing party of any damage or code violations to its equipment caused by the overlash. If the utility discovers damage or code violations caused by the overlash on equipment belonging to the utility, then the utility shall inform the overlashing party and provide adequate documentation of the damage or code violations. The utility may either complete any necessary remedial work and bill the overlashing party for the reasonable costs related to fixing the damage or code violations or require the overlashing party to fix the damage or code violations at its expense within 14 days following notice from the utility.
[83 FR 46840, Sept. 14, 2018. Redesignated at 89 FR 2171, Jan. 12, 2024]
No. 11-9455.

#### Lopez-Garcia *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
clear that a judge can sentence a defendant within the range prescribed in 

NRS 200.400(4)(b). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Pershing County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Humboldt County District Attorney 

Humboldt County Clerk 

2 

EIRAIS111111
#### § 302-3.308 Do I have to provide my agency with any special documents before receiving reimbursement for moving expenses?

Yes, before receiving reimbursement for moving expenses, you must submit a request to your agency for authorization and approval of your moving expenses with your tentative moving dates and the origin and destination location of your planned move, within the timeframe and format specified by your agency.
629P01-5

#### State v. John Edward Butler

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP14-558)

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*(COAP15-886)

2. Denied
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

FG SRC, LLC, 

Appellant

v.

INTEL CORPORATION, XILINX, INC., 

Appellees

______________________

2022-1760

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

01449, IPR2021-00633.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-1760 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 08/17/2022
2 FG SRC, LLC V. INTEL CORPORATION 

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

August 17, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 17, 2022

Case: 22-1760 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 08/17/2022
# Comments on: 18-2239: CUSTOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION [ORDER], Precedential
069P06-3

#### State v. Terraine Sanchez Byers

Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP15-897)

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2502

Lower Tribunal No. 2018-CA-010536-O

_____________________________

DANIEL K. WELLS and KIMBERLY S. WELLS,

Appellants, 

v.

HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS, INC.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Vincent S. Chiu, Judge.

May 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

Jordan T. Isringhaus, J. Andrew Meyer, and Aaron M. Swift, of Finn Law Group, 

P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellants.

Allison Morat, of Bitman, O’Brien & Morat, PLLC, Lake Mary, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly report of LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Kenneth Hamik, President, Chief Executive Officer and director 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.  Date:May 21, 2007By:/s/Kenneth HamikKenneth Hamik, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director      1
§ 302-3.414 If my agency authorizes a TCS, will it pay for extended storage of my household goods? Yes, if your agency authorizes a TCS, it will pay for extended storage when it is necessary. Extended storage expenses include: ( a ) Packing/unpacking;
( b ) Crating/uncrating;
( c ) Transporting to and from place of storage;
( d ) Charges while in storage; and
( e ) Other necessary charges directly related to storage.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7848

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-120-F, CA-98-748-5-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis , Nos. CR-95-120-F; CA-98-748-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED