alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OPEN-FILE REPORT 99-453

‘a-Collection Sites in the Uncompahgre Project Area, West-Central Colorado—PLATE 1
Butler, D.L., and Osmundson, B.C., 2000, Physical, chemical. and biological data for the ‘Uncompahgre Project Area and the Grand Valley, west-central Colorado, 1993-98

Location of Dat

Prepared in cooperation with the
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE and the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

T14S

R7W

R8W 107°45'

107°45"

REw

ROW

‘al

Montage, (4

Ww

RQ

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

108°00'

R10W

R12W

108°00'

R10W

Ri1w

108°15'

108°

R1i2Ww

iS

Data-collection site on streams, ditches,

or canals:

Generalized extent of irrigated area of
Uncompahgre Project (Study area

extends beyond line)

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000 Quadrangles:
Delta, 1980; Montrose, 1983; Nucla. 1983; Paoria, 1963

RB3

Data-collection site associated with
ponds, backwater areas,

or bottomland

le

Ov

COLLECTION

SITES INTHE UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT AREA
CENTRAL COLORADO

AND EXTENT OF IRRIGATED AREA,
WEST-

MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF DATA-

‘Study area
=

COLORADO

SCALE 1:100 000

_5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

4

CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 METERS.
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

MAP LOCATION
**EXHIBIT 13.1

SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCORP, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL REPORT

DECEMBER 31, 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
**SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCORP, INC.

AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL REPORT

DECEMBER 31, 2000****table of contents
** 

	Page
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT	1

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

	Consolidated balance sheets	2

	Consolidated statements of operations	3

	Consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss)	4

	Consolidated statements of stockholders' equity 	5

	Consolidated statements of cash flows	6

	Notes to consolidated financial statements	7-22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

 
**To the Board of Directors

Southern Heritage Bancorp, Inc. 

Oakwood, Georgia

 

		We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of **Southern Heritage Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary**as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income(loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

 

		We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free ofmaterial misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made bymanagement, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

		In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Southern Heritage Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, andthe results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

 

S/Mauldin & Jenkins

Atlanta, Georgia

February 8, 2001**********
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDMUNDO EVAN-SANGUINO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72980

Agency No. A078-739-220

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2015

Portland, Oregon

Before: KOZINSKI, BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

1. This case is REMANDED to the Board of Immigration Appeals for

further proceedings in light of Correo-Ruiz v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2015). 

The Board shall grant Petitioner an opportunity to supplement the record.

FILED

FEB 11 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
page 2

2. We reject Evan-Sanguino’s argument that the Board denied relief in

derogation of the law of the case. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320

(9th Cir. 1991) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine and discussing its

discretionary nature). There was no law of the case because neither our remand

order nor the first Board decision definitively established that Evan-Sanguino was

entitled to relief.

3. We also reject Evan-Sanguino’s argument that the Board deprived him of

due process by deciding his appeal based on the intervening authority of Matter of

Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), without allowing him to brief the

implications of that case. Even if there were a procedural problem, Evan-Sanguino

cannot make the required showing of prejudice. See United States v. Cerda-Pena,

799 F.2d 1374, 1378–79 (9th Cir. 1986). Evan-Sanguino complains that he was

never afforded an opportunity to argue that Briones should not apply retroactively

in his case. Evan-Sanguino will have an opportunity to make that argument on

remand.

Petition for review GRANTED. REMANDED with instructions.
ATA TESTING AUTHORITY (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

                              (CHINESE CHARACTERS)
                             OPTION EXERCISE NOTICE

(CHINESE CHARACTERS)
(CHINESE CHARACTERS)

To: Mr. Wang Jian Guo
Address: Room 2706, Tower A, No. 210, Guang An Men Nei Avenue, Xuanwu District,
         Beijing, China

(CHINESE CHARACTERS): 07/02/12
Date: February, 12th, 2007

(CHINESE CHARACTERS):
Dear Mr. Wang Jianguo:

(CHINESE CHARACTERS)
As per the Call Option and Cooperation Agreement entered into on October 27,
2006 among us and others, we hereby designate Mr. Wang Lin (ID Number:
110108196107114972) to acquire all of the share equity of ATA Online Education
Technology Limited owned by you. Please do anything necessary to completed the
transfer of shares within [30] days of this Notice.

(CHINESE CHARACTERS)!
Your truly,



------------------
ATA TESTING AUTHORITY (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
(CHINESE CHARACTERS) Name:
(CHINESE CHARACTERS) Position:
Exhibit
10.10.2
 EXECUTION VERSION
   AMENDMENT No. 2
to
CREDIT AGREEMENT
 dated as of December 19, 2008
among
 KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN DE M XICO, S.A. DE C.V.,
as Borrower,
 ARRENDADORA KCSM, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.,
as Guarantor,
 CERTAIN LENDERS,
 and
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
as Administrative Agent




---



##### 



THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT, Amendment), (sociedad anớnima de capital variable) Borrower), (sociedad
de responsabilidad limitada de capital variable) Guarantor), Administrative Agent).
 RECITALS
 WHEREAS, Credit Agreement);
 WHEREAS,
 NOW THEREFORE,
 Certain Defined Terms.
 Amendments.
   provided plus Restricted Payment Termination Date) less
 Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement




---



##### 



provided provided
 Representations and Warranties.
   Effect of Amendment.
 Effectiveness of Amendment. Effectiveness Date)
  Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 2




---



##### 



Executed Amendment.
 Organizational Documents.
 Authorizations.
 Section 6.
 Amendment Fee. multiplied by plus
 Ratification and Confirmation of Guarantee.
 Governins Law.
 Counterparts.
 Section Headings.
 Loan Document.
 Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN DE MÉXICO, S.A.
DE C.V., as the BorrowerBy:

/s/
Rodrigo Flores LeonName:
    Rodrigo Flores LeonTitle:
    Attorney-in-FactBy:Name:Title:ARRENDADORA KCSM, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.,
    as the GuarantorBy:

/s/
Rodrigo Flores LeonName:
    Rodrigo Flores LeonTitle:
    Attorney-in-FactBy:Name:Title: Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-1




---



##### 



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
    as the Administrative AgentBy:

/s/ Robert RittelmeyerName:
    Robert RittelmeyerTitle:
    Vice President Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-2




---



##### 



LENDERS:
BBVA BANCOMER, S.A., INSTITUCIÓN DE
BANCA MÚLTIPLE, GRUPO FINANCIERO
BBVA BANCOMER, GRAND CAYMAN
BRANCHBy:

/s/
Natividad JustoName:
    Natividad JustoTitle:By:

/s/
Luis de GuerreroName:
    Luis de GuerreroTitle: Amendment No. 2  to Credit Agreement
 S-3




---



##### 



BANK OF AMERICA, N/A.By:

/s/
Gustavo MuñtzName:
    Gustavo MuñtzTitle:
    Senior  Vice-President Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-4




---



##### 



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ÇANADABy:
    /s/ Talal M. KairouzName:
    Talal M. KairouzTitle:
    Asset ManagerBy:
    /s/ Shaun EnrightName:
    Shaun EnrightTitle:
    Asset Manager Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-5




---



##### 



KFW
duly authorized on behalf of KFWBy:
    /s/Name:Title:By:
    /s/Name:Title: Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-6




---



##### 



BANK OF MONTREALBy:
    /s/ William ThomsonName:
    William ThomsonTitle:
    Vice PresidentBy:Name:Title: Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-7




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIABy:
    /s/  Marian LawsonName:
    Marian LawsonTitle:
    Managing DirectorBy:Name:Title: Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-8




---



##### 



COMERICA BANKBy:Name:Title:By:Name:Title: Amendment No. 2
to Credit Agreement
 S-9
No. 50706.

#### Protest 55099-K of Syndicate Alliance Trading Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, .C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange foh pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 48750.

#### Protests 768229-G, etc., of Continental Grain Co. et al. (Galveston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Stone & Downer Co. *v.*United States

No. 6811.

Entry No. 3491, etc.

Invoices dated Bury, Lancashire, England, November 4, 1941, etc.

Certified November 7, 1941, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., December 19, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 28, 1947)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 4Ó2 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                             SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC.
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Fiscal Year (1)
                                              -----------------------------------------------
                                                2002      2001      2000      1999      1998
<S>                                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Earnings
-------
   Income before income taxes                 $36,300   $21,006   $33,635   $17,615   $10,719
   Plus:
      Fixed charges                            20,052    18,941    15,003    14,084     6,522
      Amortization of capitalized interest         28         -         -         -         -
   Less interest capitalized during period        240         -         -         -         -
                                              -----------------------------------------------
                                              $56,140   $39,947   $48,638   $31,699   $17,241
                                              ===============================================

Fixed Charges
-------------
   Interest (expensed or capititalized)       $15,964   $16,393   $12,767   $12,267   $ 5,505
   Portion of rent expense representative
      of interest                               2,519     1,958     1,661     1,349     1,017
   Amortization of deferred financing fees      1,569       590       575       468         -
                                              -----------------------------------------------
                                              $20,052   $18,941   $15,003   $14,084   $ 6,522
                                              ===============================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                2.8       2.1       3.2       2.3       2.6
                                              ===============================================
</TABLE>


(1) All fiscal years presented were 52 weeks, except for fiscal 2000, which had
53 weeks.
No. 74-5936.

#### Hill *v.*Fifty-Sixth District Court of Texas et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Third Division,

February 26, 1942

No. 46991.

#### Protests 904082-G, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co. et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit
10.40





ADDENDUM
TO EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT





This
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AND
NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT (this "Addendum"), dated as
of February 18, 2008, is between The Sheridan Group, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the "Employer"), and
Patricia A. Stricker (the "Employee")
(collectively, “the Parties”).





WHEREAS, the Parties entered
into an Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (the “Agreement”) on or about
April 1, 2007; and





WHEREAS, a question has arisen
between the Parties with respect to the application and duration of §§6(e), 7, 8
and 9 of the Agreement; and





WHEREAS, the Parties wish to
enter into this Addendum to clarify their intent and eliminate any ambiguity
with respect to §§6(e), 7, 8 and 9 of the Agreement; and





WHEREAS, it is the intent of
the Parties that all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue to
remain in full force and effect, subject to the clarification set forth in this
Addendum.





NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby
agreed as follows:





1.           The
above recitals are incorporated herein by reference, and are intended to be
binding upon the Parties.





2.           The
Parties acknowledge and agree that it is the mutual intent of the Parties that
the Employee’s rights and remedies upon termination set forth in §6(e) of the
Agreement apply to the termination at anytime of
Employee’s employment by the Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors and/or
assigns) without Cause pursuant to §6(c) or by the Employee with Good Reason
pursuant to §6(d).  Moreover, it is the Parties’ specific intent that
the Employee’s rights and remedies upon termination set forth in §6(e) will
survive the termination of the Agreement.





3.           The
Parties acknowledge and agree that it is the mutual intent of the Parties that
the Employee’s obligations to the Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors
and/or assigns) set forth in §7 (Inventions; Assignment); §8 (Confidential
Information); and §9 (Non-Competition) of the Agreement apply to the termination
at any timeof Employee’s employment with Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors
and/or assigns). Moreover, it is the Parties’ specific intent that the
Employee’s obligations to the Employer set forth in §7, §8 and §9 will survive
the termination of the Agreement.





4.           The
Parties each acknowledge and agree that this Addendum is supported by the
consideration set forth in the Agreement, which the Parties acknowledge to be
good and valuable.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and
intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed as of the date and year first above
written.





THE SHERIDAN GROUP,
      INC.By:
            /s/JohnA.SaxtonJohn A. SaxtonPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/PatriciaA.StrickerPatricia A. Stricker
99-0628 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Raymond GRANGER, Jr., et al. v. ECONOMY FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.

No. 99-C-0628.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Granger, Raymond, Jr.; Tous-saint, Laurent; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Avoyelles 12th Judicial District Court *888Div. “B” Number 96-2481; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-1063

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J. not on panel.
Exhibit 10.2




Exhibit 10.2


 


January 7, 2008


 


To Jeffrey J. Ritchey


 


Per the Pro-Dex Board of Director’s compensation committee’s
approval on December 4, 2007:


 


	
	Your bi-weekly salary is increased to $6,346.15, which
     equals $165,000 per year as of the first payroll period in 2008, to be
     paid on or about January 17, 2008.



 


	
	In the event that you are terminated involuntarily by the
     Company without “cause” as defined below, the Company shall pay to you a severance
     payment equal to (4) four times your then current monthly base salary less
     applicable withholding as required by law.  Such payment shall be made in
     equal incremental payments, consistent with the Company’s usual payroll
     payment periods, over a period of (4) four months immediately following
     your last day of employment with the Company.  As used herein, the term
     “cause” means (i) your willful breach or gross neglect of the duties and
     obligations required of you either expressly or implied; or (ii) your
     commission of fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation, involving the
     Company whether or not a criminal of civil charge is filed in connection
     with such activity.



 


 


 


/s/ Mark Murphy                       


Mark Murphy


Chief Executive Officer 


Pro-Dex
Motions Denied; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31 ,

2018

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00511- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A.A., L.A., L.A., AND R.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 328th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16- DCV -237456A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant R.M. attempts to appeal the Order for Monitored Return signed by the trial court on May 24, 2018. An order for monitored return is interlocutory and not appealable. In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , 348 S.W.3d 492, 498 (Tex. App. —Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding). On June 28, 2018, this court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless a response was filed showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed two motions on July 6, 2018: (1) a motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal, and ( 2) a motion to reinstate, which we construe as a response to our2

dismissal notice.
The motion to reinstate states in relevant part:
I am requesting that the following cases be placed on the docket because this case is with 14- 18 -00509-CV. There should not be a case in the courts for me. So I am requesting both cases to be viewed so both can be dismissed and disposed of. Both cases are public corruption cases. . . . [A]nd no abuse occurred. Appellant’s motion refers to her other appeal pending in this court, No. 14-
18 -00509-CV. That appeal involves another of appellant’s children, C.F., Jr., and is from a judgment entitled, “Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent Child Relationship.” Such a judgment is appealable. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002. However, the appealability of the final order in appeal 14- 18 -00509-CV is immaterial to the appealability of the order for monitored return in this appeal.
This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion to reinstate and her motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal are
DENIED AS MOOT

. Appeal number 14- 18 -00509-CV remains pending.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby.
#### Eileen G. Zuckerman, Respondent, v 234-6 W. 22 St. Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[699 NYS2d 284]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 17, 1998, which, upon plaintiffs post-foreclosure motion, awarded plaintiff $40,000 in additional attorneys’ fees to be paid out of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, and directed that any surplus be disbursed in accordance with the order of Chief Bankruptcy Judge Tina Brozman dated February 4, 1998, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The post-foreclosure supplemental judgment appealed from does not bring up for review, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (a), the final judgment of foreclosure and sale, or the order granting summary judgment to plaintiff. Even assuming that defendant had the right to seek review of the issues determined in the final judgment of foreclosure, the points defendant now raises challenging the validity of the foreclosure are without merit (see, *e.g., City of New York v Zuckerman,*234 AD2d 160, *lv dismissed*90 NY2d 845). In particular, the action was not time-barred because the automatic stay of 11 USC § 362 tolled the limitations period for this foreclosure action (see, CPLR 204 [a]). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1540]]

Public Law 115-211
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, as the ``Tuskegee Airmen Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 24, 2018 -  [H.R. 4406]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TUSKEGEE AIRMEN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Tuskegee Airmen Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tuskegee 
Airmen Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 24, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4406:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Mar. 5, considered and passed House.
            June 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Opinion filed September 16, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00205-CR

__________

MANUEL ANGEL OLIVAS-MONTOYA, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR 127,886

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Manuel Angel Olivas-Montoya has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The 

motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

September 16, 2010

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.