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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                       600
<INVENTORY>                                      5,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,286
<PP&E>                                          91,623
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,824
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,300
<SALES>                                        132,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,728
<CGS>                                           89,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   658
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.45


Exhibit 10.45



FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT 



        This
First Amendment to Credit Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made as of this 26th
day of February, 2003 by and among ASCENT ASSURANCE, INC. (the “Borrower”), and
Credit Suisse First Boston Management Corporation (“CSFBM”). 




W I T N E S S E T H 



        WHEREAS,
the Borrower and CSFBM are parties to that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of April 17,
2001 (the “Credit Agreement”); and, 



        WHEREAS,
the parties hereto desire to amend the Credit Agreement, subject to the terms and
conditions contained herein. 



        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and other good and
valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and subject to the
terms and conditions hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: 



        SECTION
1.    DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized
terms shall have the meaning given to them in the Credit Agreement. 



        SECTION
2.    AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT.



          		    2.1
Effective as of December 31, 2002, Exhibit G to the Credit Agreement is hereby
               deleted in its entirety and replaced by inserting the following in its stead: 



               




“MINIMUM
STATUTORY SURPLUS REQUIREMENT 


		
	 	A.  Insurance Subsidiary	 	B.  Minimum Statutory Surplus Requirement for that Insurance
     Subsidiary, as specified in Exhibit G to the Credit Agreement	 
	 	
	 	
	 
	 	1. National Foundation Life Insurance Company	 	$   5.7	
	 	2. National Financial Insurance Company	 	$   1.4	
	 	3. American Insurance Company of Texas	 	$   1.4	
	 	4. Freedom Life Insurance Company of America	 	$   7.0	




        SECTION
3.    CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT.  The  effectiveness  of this  Amendment is expressly  conditioned
upon satisfaction of the following conditions precedent:



          		    3.1
      CSFBM shall have received copies of this Amendment duly executed by the Borrower.



               



		    3.2
CSFBM shall have received such other documents, certificates and assurances as it shall
reasonably request, all of which have been delivered on or prior to the date hereof. 



               




        SECTION
4.    REAFFIRMATION OF THE BORROWER. The Borrower hereby represents and
warrants to CSFBM that upon execution hereof no Event of Default has occurred and is
continuing under the Credit Agreement, and the Credit Agreement, as so amended, shall
remain in full force and effect. 



        SECTION
5.    COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same document. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day and year
specified above. 




	 	ASCENT ASSURANCE, INC. 
	 	By: /s/ Patrick J. Mitchell
	 	Name: Patrick J. Mitchell
	 	Title: Chairman of the Board and President
	 
	 
	 	CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 
	 	By: /s/ Alan Freudenstein
	 	Name: Alan Freudenstein   
	 	Title: Managing Director
#### D. H. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. McCAIN SALES OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 40764.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 758.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
#### Mr. Homer E. MARTY, Mrs. Luciell Marty and Denese Marty. v. Jack N. LEE, State of Louisiana, Dept. of Sanitary Services and Care Services, Inc.

No. 61684.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1978.

In re: Jack N. Lee and Care Services, Inc. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Granted. The injunction prohibiting defendant from laying a sewer line on his property, with access to defendant’s property to accomplish the work, is annulled and set aside. However, the injunction is maintained in effect insofar as it prohibits defendant from dumping, draining or permitting raw sewerage from the premises at 838-42 Esplanade Ave. unto plaintiff’s premises at 1320 Dauphine St. A mandatory injunction is granted to plaintiff requiring defendant to accomplish the work of laying the sewer pipe within five working days insofar as the use of defendant’s property is concerned. Plaintiff’s right to claim damages for the invasion of his property and possessory rights as in case of trespass are reserved.

DIXON, J.,

dissents, believing the applicant has no right to go on his neighbors land to repair his plumbing, when it can be done completely on applicant’s land. However, plaintiff-respondent has the right to apply here for a rehearing and would be well advised to attach to his application the evidence heard by the trial judge who granted the injunction.

CALOGERO, J.,

dissents from the writ grant. Relator’s unilateral showing doesn’t convince me that the trial court’s judgment, based on evidence not now before this court, should be reversed in any regards.

DENNIS, J., dissents for the reasons stated by Dixon and Calogero, JJ.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

IL-27 Lake Shelbyville Road 

Improvements Roadway Resurfacing

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers - Lake 

Shelbyville

Shelby County Shelby 2017-

2018

IL-28 Dee Bennett Road Relocation Preliminary Engineering

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers - Starved Rock 

Lock & Dam/Illinois 

Waterway Project

LaSalle County LaSalle 2018

IL-37 Forest Road Bridge 

Replacement Bridge Replacement U.S. Forest Service - Shawnee National Forest Saline County Saline 2021

IL-39 Lake Shelbyville Road Access 

Improvements - Phase 2 Roadway Resurfacing

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers - Lake 

Shelbyville

Shelby County Shelby 2021-

2022

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Illinois Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Illinois FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

Illinois Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2017-2022

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The Illinois PDC does not have a firm date for the next 

Call for Projects under the Access Program. Please bookmark our website to watch for future calls in your state. 

https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/ 

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28528]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-18]


Prairie Island Offsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation; Closing of Temporary Local Public Document Room

    Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
will consider the temporary local public document room (LPDR) set up 
for records pertaining to Northern States Power Company's proposed 
Prairie Island Offsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
(ISFSI), located at the Red Wing Public Library, Red Wing, Minnesota, 
officially closed effective October 31, 1997. The NRC's official full 
service LPDR for the Prairie Island Nuclear Station, located at the 
Minneapolis Public Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 
will remain operational.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22 day of October, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Russell A. Powell,
Chief, Freedom of Information/Local, Public Document Room Branch, 
Office of Information Resources Management.
[FR Doc. 97-28528 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### LUMBERMANS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 76-1006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 10, 1977.

As Corrected On Denied of Rehearing Sept. 21, 1977.

Thornton, Dougherty & Conroy and John Edward Herndon, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby and Alan R. Dakan, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., HUBBART, J., and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Roth*v. *Old Republic Insurance Co.,*269 So.2d 3 (Fla.1972).
Order entered September 22, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00803
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A .M.G., I.V.G. AND E. G., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. DF
- 13
- 17718 

### O RDER By order entered September 8, 2014, we directed appellant to file, no later than September 15, 2014, written verification he had requested preparation of the reporter’s record and had paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter ’s fee. Appellant did not respond

. However, on September 19, 2014, the court reporter informed us that she had received payment, and she requested a brief extension of time

. We GRANT the court reporter’s request and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than September 29, 2014. As the clerk’s record has been filed, appellant’s brief shall be filed within thirty days of the filing of the reporter’s record.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

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

** **

I,John Farahi, Chief Executive Officer of Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

3.               The Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

4.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /S/ JOHN FARAHI          |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| John  Farahi             |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| March 13,  2009     |

 

----
International Fuel Technology, Inc. 10-Q


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 conjunction with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),





I, Stuart D. Beath, the 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, to the best of my knowledge:





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




(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  November 16, 2009

By:
/s/ Stuart D. BeathName:
Stuart D. BeathTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 
 
 **Certification
        of Principal Executive Officer**
 **Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**
 **as
        Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002**
 
 
 I,
        Albert
        W. Weggeman, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
        Report of Net Perceptions, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
        30,
        2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
        Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
        condition and results of operations of Net Perceptions, Inc.
 
 
 Date:November
                14, 2006
              By:/s/ Albert W. Weggeman, Jr.Name:Albert
                W. Weggeman, Jr.Title:Chief
                Executive Officer*(Principal
                Executive Officer)*
 
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Norman F. SOLOMON, Appellant, v. John HUNT et ux., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-802.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1971.

Norman F. Solomon, in pro. per.

Richard L. Lapidus, and James F. Pollack, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order holding that appellant was in contempt for his failure to comply with a prior order of the court. The order which is appealed further granted to appellant five days within which to comply with the prior order. The only point presented on this appeal urges that the appellant was not given an adequate notice of the hearing at which the second order was entered.

The appellant made no effort to present any defense to the appealed order during the five day grace period or thereafter. We think that under those circumstances the point claiming inadequacy of the notice of the hearing at which the appealed order was entered does not present prejudicial error. It is the duty of a party resorting to an appellate court to make the errors complained of clearly appear, if they in truth exist. Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 So. 745 (1914).

Affirmed.
2

US Department 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE
of Transportation
Federal Highway Washington,DC 20590

Administration

In Reply Refer To: HCR-20

AUG 2 8 2018 DOT# 2018-0166

Subject: Dismissal of Complaint DOT# 2018-0166

ea

This letter acknowledges the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Civil Rights
received your complaint against the City of Erie, (City) Pennsylvania filed on behalf of Eastside
residents of Erie, (Eastside Community Residents), alleging the City violated Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and its implementing regulations, including Title V1
regulations administered by the United States Department of Transportation (49 C.F.R. Part 21)
and the Federal Highway Administration (23 C.F.R. Part 200). Your complaint was received in
this office on April 6", 2018.

In your complaint, you alleged that the Eastside residents of Erie, Pennsylvania will be
disparately, adversely impacted by the demolition of the McBride Viaduct.

After careful consideration, the FHWA has concluded that it must dismiss this complaint because
the matter is pending in a court with superior jurisdiction.

If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Resler at (202) 366-2925.

Sincerely,

Nichole McWhorter
Title VI Team Leader
Office of Civil Rights

Ce: Alicia Nolan, Division Administrator, FHWA PA Division Office
Moises Marrero, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA PA Division Office
Khan Mitchell, Civil Rights Program Specialist, FHWA PA Division Office
James Esselman, Senior Attorney-Advisor, FHWA Office of Chief Counsel
Yvette Rivera, Associate Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division
Kevin Resler, National Title VI Program Coordinator, FHWA Office of Civil Rights
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of Milburn Mills, Appellant, v. Luis Antonio CAOS, Appellee.

No. 69-1079.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1970.

Strauss & McCormick, Miami, for appellant.

Benjamin Agronow, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff’s and defendant’s causes of action, without prejudice, after the case was called for trial on the plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s answer and counterclaim. The dismissal was entered pursuant to an oral motion made by the defendant before plaintiff had rested his case, alleging failure of the plaintiff to comply with the court’s pretrial order requiring the parties to furnish a list of the witnesses to each other. The court found that both plaintiff and counter-claimant had failed to comply with such order, and entered the order of dismissal, later amended to be without prejudice.

Appellant contends that the defendant-counter-claimant was not entitled to move ore tenus for a dismissal during the trial as such procedure is contrary to Florida Civil Procedure, Rule 1.420(b), 30 F.S.A., which requires notice of hearing as provided for under Rule 1.090(d). It is our view that such rule is inapplicable in the instant case.

The appellant’s point on appeal is whether a defendant is entitled to move for a dismissal at the time of trial when such motion is heard ore tenus without any notice, and when the plaintiff has not completed the presentation of his evidence. We hold that an order based upon such a motion is proper. In Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 902, the court held that an order, based on an oral motion at a pretrial conference, was proper. In examining appellant’s intentions, the court noted as follows:

> “The appellant contends that a motion may not be made orally except at a ‘trial or hearing’ and that no case has been cited to us in which a pretrial conference has been held to be a ‘hearing’ within the meaning of the rule. We hold that it is. The requirements of the Rules are met by the presence of opposing counsel, the absence of surprise to him or injury to his client, the reduction to writing of the motion and the ruling thereon and, *54above all, the tendancy of the motion toward the just and expeditious disposition of the cause.” Id. at 903.

We find no error in the procedure followed by the trial court in the instant case, and we hereby hold that its order of dis missal without prejudice should be affirmed.

Affirmed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3507 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

12804 Chillicothe Road in Chesterland, Ohio, as the ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang 

Kyle Weninger Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. VANCE (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 12804 Chillicothe Road in Chesterland, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle Weninger Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SGT. WOLFGANG KYLE WENINGER POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 12804 Chillicothe Road in 

7 Chesterland, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle Weninger Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3507 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle 

5 Weninger Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00157-CV

HUNG THIEN APPELLANT

V.

JOHN BASWETI APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Hung Thien attempts to appeal from a final judgment in favor of 

Appellee John Basweti. The trial court signed the judgment on March 30, 2011. 

Thien did not file a post-judgment motion extending the deadline to file the notice 

of appeal, so the notice of appeal was due by April 29, 2011, but was filed on 

May 2, 2011. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1)–(4).

 

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

Because Thien’s notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, we notified him 

on May 10, 2011, of our concern that this court may not have jurisdiction over the

appeal. We informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the 

appeal filed with the court, on or before May 20, 2011, a response showing a 

reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal or advising the 

court that the notice of appeal was properly mailed on or before the due date, the

appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b), 

10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a). We have received no response.

The times for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in this court, and 

absent a timely filed notice of appeal or an extension request, we must dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617 (Tex. 1997). Because Thien did not timely file his notice of appeal, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

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

DELIVERED: July 21, 2011