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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001068725
<NAME> COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANKSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          27,361
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,628
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    144,870
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          43,747
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            47,008
<LOANS>                                        588,634
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 855,347
<DEPOSITS>                                     586,056
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,448
<LONG-TERM>                                    123,163
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,564
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 855,347
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,527
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,082
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,877
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,486
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,242
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,244
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      517
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,396
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,110
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,110
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.60
<LOANS-NON>                                        722
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    812
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,160
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (50)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,627
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,627
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.39

                           Global Technovations, Inc.
                          7108 Fairway Drive, Suite 200
                        Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418-3757



                                November 29, 2000


VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS


Mr. G. Jeff Mennen
TMF Investments
25 Hanover Road
Building B
Florham Park, NJ  07932


Dear Jeff:

         We are  enclosing  the  Guarantee  to be executed by George Jeff Mennen
Co-trustee  u/a dated  November  25, 1970 with George S. Mennen F/B/O John Henry
Mennen (the "Trust").  The Guarantee is of a $1,000,000  note to be delivered to
Global Technovations,  Inc.'s (the "Company") 85%-owned  subsidiary,  Top Source
Automotive,  Inc. This Guarantee  permits the Company to use the available funds
and  provide  the  necessary  protection  to its  management  and its  board  of
directors with respect to any possible claim from NCT Audio Group, Inc.

         This  letter  also  evidences  the  fact  that  in  exchange  for  this
Guarantee, the Company shall pay the Trust a $50,000 fee, which fee shall be due
and payable on January 15, 2001 and issue to the Trust  150,000 of the Company's
warrants exercisable at $.63 per share over a 10 year period. Provided, however,
the warrants shall not be exercisable  until the earlier of an effective date of
a registration  statement  covering the underlying common stock or one year from
the date of this letter.


         If the Trust is required to pay the Guarantee in whole or in part,  the
Company shall issue to it 10% Convertible  Preferred Stock convertible at a 30 %
discount  from  market  (but not less than $.60 per  share),  redeemable  at the
Company's  option  at 115%  of  face  value  through  June  30,  2001  and  120%
thereafter.  The Company shall use its best efforts to register the common stock
issuable upon  conversion  within six months of issuance of the preferred  stock
and only 1/6 of face value can be sold per month cumulative.

Sincerely yours,




William C. Willis, Jr., President

I hereby agree to the foregoing.




By:_________________
    G. Jeff Mennen, Trustee
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 SRKP 12, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A.
      Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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/
                Richard A. Rappaport
              -----------------------------------
              Richard
                A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              March
                15, 2007
§ 171.203 Security exception—When will an actor's practice that is likely to interfere with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information in order to protect the security of electronic health information not be considered information blocking? An actor's practice that is likely to interfere with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information in order to protect the security of electronic health information will not be considered information blocking when the practice meets the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, and in addition meets either the condition in paragraph (d) of this section or the condition in paragraph (e) of this section. ( a ) The practice must be directly related to safeguarding the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic health information.
( b ) The practice must be tailored to the specific security risk being addressed.
( c ) The practice must be implemented in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner.
( d ) If the practice implements an organizational security policy, the policy must— ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Have been prepared on the basis of, and be directly responsive to, security risks identified and assessed by or on behalf of the actor;
( 3 ) Align with one or more applicable consensus-based standards or best practice guidance; and
( 4 ) Provide objective timeframes and other parameters for identifying, responding to, and addressing security incidents.
( e ) If the practice does not implement an organizational security policy, the actor must have made a determination in each case, based on the particularized facts and circumstances, that: ( 1 ) The practice is necessary to mitigate the security risk to electronic health information; and
( 2 ) There are no reasonable and appropriate alternatives to the practice that address the security risk that are less likely to interfere with access, exchange or use of electronic health information.
[85 FR 25955, May 1, 2020, as amended at 85 FR 70085, Nov. 4, 2020]
§ 1602.15 Submitter's rights process. ( a ) When LSC receives a FOIA request seeking the release of confidential commercial information, LSC shall provide prompt written notice of the request to the submitter in order to afford the submitter an opportunity to object to the disclosure of the requested confidential commercial information. The notice shall reasonably describe the confidential commercial information requested, inform the submitter of the process required by paragraph (b) of this section, and provide a reasonable time period for the submitter to respond.
( b ) If a submitter who has received notice of a request for the submitter's confidential commercial information wishes to object to the disclosure of the confidential commercial information, the submitter must provide LSC within the time period set forth in the notice, a detailed written statement identifying the information which it objects. The submitter must send its objections to the Office of Legal Affairs or, if it pertains to Office of Inspector General records, to the Office of Inspector General, and must specify the grounds for withholding the information under FOIA or this part. In particular, the submitter must demonstrate why the information is commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. If the submitter fails to respond to the notice from LSC within the time period specified in the notice, LSC will deem the submitter to have no objection to the disclosure of the information.
( c ) Upon receipt of written objection to disclosure by a submitter, LSC shall consider the submitter's objections and specific grounds for withholding in deciding whether to release the disputed information. Whenever LSC decides to disclose information over the objection of the submitter, LSC shall give the submitter written notice which shall include: ( 1 ) A description of the information to be released and a notice that LSC intends to release the information;
( 2 ) A statement of the reason(s) why the submitter's request for withholding is being rejected; and
( 3 ) A specified disclosure date, which must be a reasonable time after the notice.
( d ) The requirements of this section shall not apply if: ( 1 ) LSC determines upon initial review of the requested confidential commercial information that the requested information should not be disclosed;
( 2 ) The information has been previously published or officially made available to the public; or
( 3 ) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than FOIA) or LSC's regulations.
( e ) Whenever a requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel disclosure of a submitter's information, LSC shall promptly notify the submitter.
( f ) Whenever LSC provides a submitter with notice and opportunity to oppose disclosure under this section, LSC shall notify the requester that the submitter's rights process under this section has been triggered. Likewise, whenever a submitter files a lawsuit seeking to prevent the disclosure of the submitter's information, LSC shall notify the requester.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements

SEVIM McSHANE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0066-09-4 PER CURIAM JUNE 23, 2009 RAYMOND GERARD McSHANE

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY William D. Ha mblen, Judge (David L. Duff; Adam T. Kronfel d; The Duff Law Firm, on briefs), for appellant. (Harris W. Leiner; Lucy P. Homill er; Batzli, Wood & Stiles, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Sevim McShane (wife) appeals the spousal supp ort ruling in the final decree. Wife argues that the trial court erre d in not entering written findings and conclusions identifying the factors which supported the granting of spousal support, and the nature, am ount, and duration of the award. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the part ies, we find that wife did not preserve her arguments for appeal. Rule 5A:18. Therefore, the trial cour t’s ruling is summaril y affirmed. Rule
5A:27. On October 29, 2008, the partie s appeared before th e circuit court for a final hearing on the outstanding issues of their divorce. The trial cour t ruled from the bench th at wife should receive nine years of spousal support, pa yable at $2,100 per month for th e first three years and $1,500 per month for the next six years. Th e trial court explained its rulings and how it arrived at the award based on the statutory factors in Code § 20-107.1 (E). On December 8, 2008, a final decree was

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - entered and stated that the spousal support award was based “[u] pon consideration of the factors of Virginia 20-107.1(E).” Wife did not sign the final decree, nor did she object that th e final decree failed to include the judge ’s written findings pursuant to Code § 20-107.1(F). Wi fe subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration an d rehearing, but failed to note he r objection that the final decree did not include the trial court’s written findings of the statutory factors to support the spousal support award. Therefore, wife did not pres erve her argument that the tria l court erred in not providing written findings of the statutory factors that supported its spousal support award. See Rule 5A:18. Rule 5A:18 states that “No ruling of the tr ial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” We “will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial
court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial court to correct in the trial court any error that is called to its attention.” Lee v. Lee , 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) (en banc). There was no miscarriage of justice in this case , and the ends of justi ce exception does not apply. Therefore, we will not consider wife’s ques tion presented, and the trial court’s decision is summarily affirmed. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 71187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO-310-1310-PB-24 1A]


Oil and Gas Leasing: Onshore Oil and Gas Operations--Fees, 
Rentals, and Royalty

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of termination of the stripper well royalty reductions 
program.

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

SUMMARY: The termination of benefits for stripper well properties was 
effective February 1, 2006, and replaced by Section 343 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, which was established a Marginal Property 
Production Incentives Program (MPPIP).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rudy Baier, Division of Fluid 
Minerals, BLM, (202) 452-5024. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 
1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except holidays, for 
assistance in reaching Mr. Baier.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By Federal Register notice (70 FR 42093) 
dated July 21, 2005, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provided six-
month notification, as required by regulation, to terminate the 
benefits of the royalty rate reductions granted under the stripper well 
royalty reductions (see 43 CFR 3103.4-2) program. In that FR notice, 
the BLM requested comments specifically on the financial conditions 
under which the BLM would reestablish the benefits under that program. 
The BLM received five comments. The comments will be considered if BLM 
develops a stripper/marginal property replacement program.
    The BLM has determined that it will not establish the current 
program since the MPPIP was established by Congress to take its place 
until the Secretary of the Interior issues regulations prescribing 
different relief.
    The current regulations authorize royalty rate reduction on a case-
by-case basis (see 43 CFR 3103.4-1).

    Dated: October 19, 2006.
Thomas P. Lonnie,
Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection.
[FR Doc. 06-9530 Filed 12-07-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00298

- CV

MARVIN HAWKINS , Appellant

v.

SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY , Appellee

From the 414th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 572

- 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marvin Hawkins’ notice of appeal was filed on November 15 , 2021. In a letter

dated November 16, 2021, the Clerk of this Court notifi ed Hawkins that the appeal was
subject to dismissal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1. In the same letter, Hawkins was also warned
that the Court would dismiss the appeal without further notification unless, within 14
days from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the
appeal. More than 14 days ha v e passed , and Hawkins has not re sponded

.Hawkins v. Sentry Cas

. Co

. Page 2 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for the failure to comply with a notice from
the Clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

4 2.3(c)

.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 5 , 202 2 [CV 0 6]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 10, 2010 

d0603 

Order 

 

June 10, 2010 

139985(73)(74)(76) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139985 

 COA: 283569 

Ottawa CC: 07-031322-FC 

FREDDIE BASS PARKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of April 28, 2010, attorney Dennis M. Powers was directed to respond to 

the allegations set forth in the defendant’s pro se motion for reconsideration. On order of 

the Court, the answer having been received, the motions for reconsideration of this 

Court’s January 29, 2010 order filed by the defendant and by attorney Dennis M. Powers 

are considered, and they are DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
RESOLUTIONS

CALENDAR 

NO

S. RES 

NO

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

1

 
TREATIES

CALENDAR 

NO

TREATY

DOC NO

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

2

 
* Signifies nominee’s commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 

NOMINATIONS

CALENDAR 

NO

MESSAGE

NO

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR REPORTED 

BY

3

THE JUDICIARY 

43 6 Vanessa Lynne Bryant, of Connecticut, to be 

United States District Judge for the District of 

Connecticut, vice Dominic J. Squatrito, retired. 

Mar 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

ARMY 

44 212 The following named officer for appointment as 

the Chief of Engineers/Commanding General, 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 

appointment to the grade indicated in the 

United States Army, while assigned to a 

position of importance and responsibility under 

title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 3036: 

Mar 15, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Levin, Committee on Armed 

Services, without printed 

report. 

to be Lieutenant General 

 Lt. Gen. Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

49 185 John Wood, of Missouri, to be United States 

Attorney for the Western District of Missouri 

for the term of four years, vice Todd Peterson 

Graves, resigned. 

Mar 19, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report.
#### Whipple, appellant, v. Walker.

*Promissory note —partial payment—what is not.*

Plaintiff left a note made by defendant for $55.17 at a bank for collection. The note was not paid when due. After it had been overdue some days, and was still in possession of the bank, defendant’s agent deposited with the bank a draft for $30, directing that the same, when collected, be applied upon the note. The avails of the draft were credited to the agent and the note unpaid returned to plaintiff. *Held,*that the transaction between the agent and bank did not constitute a part payment of the note.

*457Appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought upon a promissory note given by the defendant, Lois T. Walker, to the plaintiff, William D. Whipple, on July 31, 1869, for $55.17 and interest. The note was made payable at the bank of Williams & Remington, in Canandaigua, IST. Y., where it was left by plaintiff, after the usual custom of business men, to enable the bank to receive payment of it. It became due on the 3d of September, when it was protested for non-payment, and was afterward returned unpaid to plaintiff, who brought this suit to recover the amount of it.

Defendant claimed to have made a partial payment on the note. Mr. Spencer Gooding, who is her attorney in this action, about September 20, called at the bank and asked for *“*the Whipple note.” The note in question was produced and shown to him. He, within a day or two afterward, deposited in the bank a draft of $20, made by him on S. H. Tate, of Williamsport, and directed the teller to collect it and apply upon this not,e. The draft was collected and the avails credited to Gooding, by whom they were subsequently checked out.

The referee found that this transaction of Gooding with the bank constituted a partial payment of the note, and gave judgment in favor of the defendant for costs, deducting from the amount the unpaid balance of the note.

*D. G. Lapham,*for appellant.

*Spencer Gooding,*for respondent.

E. Dakwim Smith, J.

We think the referee erred in deducting the proceeds of the Tate draft from the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery.

This draft was collected by the bank, not as agent of the plaintiff, but as agent of Spencer Gooding, the defendant’s attorney, and passed to his credit in account in the books of the bank and paid to him.

The plaintiff had nothing to do with it, and the said draft or the moneys collected on it at no time became the property of the plaintiff. The bank was simply intrusted by the plaintiff with the note of the defendant for collection, and had no power to bind the plaintiff by any contracts to receive any thing but money in pay-*458meat thereof, or to do with said note any thing else but to receive payment of it in cash.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted with costs to abide the event.

*Judgment reversed.*