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


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK>                                               0000741612
<NAME>                                              TNP Enterprises, Inc.

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      921,142
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    8,537
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         26,216
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       27,629
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 984,210
<COMMON>                                       195,608
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            115,003
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 310,611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    3,060
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           475,681
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 194,858
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  984,210
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      118,125
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           712
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     102,921
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     103,633
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        14,492
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             281
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 14,773
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       11,641
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,132
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    36
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  3,096
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       3,870
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      10,224
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (10,166)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.23



</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15815

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02799-TWT

SANDRA GRAY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THE CITY OF ROSWELL, et al.,

 Defendants,

PATRICK C. FERDARKO, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(May 7, 2014)

Case: 13-15815 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before HULL, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Patrick C. Ferdarko, a City of Roswell, Georgia police officer, appeals from 

the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment. Plaintiff, 

Sandra Gray, moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Gray’s claim 

arises from her arrest for criminal damage to the property of Gregory Pompelia, 

her tenant, during her attempt to remove him from her home without seeking a writ 

of dispossession. 

The district court’s summary judgment order denying qualified immunity to 

Ferdarko is immediately appealable as a collateral order because Ferdarko’s 

challenge is based in part on a question of law. In his brief, Ferdarko challenges 

the district court’s legal analysis of Georgia criminal trespass statutes, O.C.G.A. §

16-7-21 and § 16-7-23, to consider whether those statutes provide arguable 

probable cause to arrest Gray, and whether the district court used an improper 

standard to determine whether the law clearly proscribed the conduct complained 

of. Thus, Ferdarko’s appeal presents questions of law which are properly before 

this Court on interlocutory review. See Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1485

(11th Cir. 1996). To the extent that the appeal also implicates the district court’s 

factual determinations, we may review and resolve such issues in connection with 

Case: 13-15815 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

the immunity question. Id. at 1485–86. Therefore, we DENY the motion to 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On review, we agree with the district court that the evidence Gray presents 

in support of her false arrest claim, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, 

suggests that there was no basis for believing that she committed a crime and that 

there was no probable cause, arguable or otherwise, to support her arrest. 

Therefore, the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to Ferdarko’s 

affirmative defense of qualified immunity was not in error.

MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. AFFIRMED and REMANDED for 

further proceedings.

Case: 13-15815 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3
#### Jacob KARTMAN et al., Appellants, v. Virginia MORGAN, Appellee.

No. 71-340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 9, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nick KARNO.

No. 62462.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 1978.

In re: Israel M. Augustine, Jr., applying for recusal. Parish of Orleans.

Application denied. The applicant judge has already recused himself. The matter is remanded to the Criminal District Court for that court en banc to determine whether the allotment is governed by the provisions of Rule 8, Sec. 2, Rules of the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, and to make the appropriate allotment.
Exhibit 4.1









    


     


    

 


The following abbreviations, when
used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according
to applicable laws or regulations.


 


	  TEN COM 	— 	as tenants in common	 	 	 
	  TEN ENT 	— 	as tenants by the entireties	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — 	__________ Custodian __________
	  JT TEN 	— 	as joint tenants with rights of survivorship
    and not as tenants in common	 	 	(Cust)                              
        (Minor)

        under
Uniform Gifts to Minors

        
Act _________________________
	 	 	 	 	 	(State)
	 	 	 	 	UNIF TRF MIN ACT — 	__________ Custodian __________
	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)                              
        (Minor)

        under
        Uniform Transfers to Minors

	 	 	 	 	 	Act _________________________
	 	 	 	 	 	(State)


 


Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, ______________________________ hereby sell(s), assign(s), and transfer(s) unto


 


	(PLEASE
    INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR	 	 
	OTHER IDENTIFYING
    NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE)	 	 
	 	 	 
	

                                                                                 

 
	 	 


 


 


 


 


(PLEASE
PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)


 


________________________________________________________________________________________
Shares of the Class A Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 


________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


	Dated:	 	 




 





	 	X	 
	 	 	 
	 	X	 
	 	NOTICE:	The signature to
    this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration
    or enlargement or any change whatever.







 


Signature(s) Guaranteed:


 


	 	 
	The
    signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible institution (banks, stockbrokers, savings and loan associations and credit
    unions with membership in an approved signature medallion program), pursuant to S.E.C. Rule 17Ad-15.
Ballot on the Proposed Suspension of Benefits for the 

Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan 

The proposed suspension of benefits under the Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan (the “Fund”) is 

explained in a notice to you dated March 24, 2017. It is now time to vote on the proposed suspension. As 

you consider whether to vote for or against the suspension, please keep the following in mind: 

The proposed benefit suspension will apply to all current and future pensioners. On average, the 

suspension reduces the benefits of the current and future pensioners by 22%. However, the actual 

percentage reduction will vary from 0% to 82%, depending upon each pensioner’s age and other factors. 

The proposed suspension will remain in effect indefinitely and will not expire by its own terms. The effect 

of the suspension on your benefit is shown on the statement delivered with this ballot. 

The proposed suspension has already been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with 

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) and the Secretary of Labor. 

The Fund’s Trustees support the proposed suspension, because you will receive a larger benefit than if the 

Fund became insolvent and ran out of money. Although the exact date is unknown, unless the proposed 

suspension takes effect, the Fund is expected to become insolvent during the Plan Year ending March 

2022. The Fund’s insolvency will result in benefits lower than benefits paid under the proposed 

suspension. In addition, the PBGC, which subsidizes the benefits of insolvent funds might also run out 

of money, if this Fund and other funds become insolvent. In the event the PBGC becomes insolvent, your 

benefit will most likely be lower than benefits otherwise paid in the case of the Fund’s insolvency. 

Taking into account the proposed suspension of benefits, the Fund’s actuary has certified that insolvency 

will be avoided. Although not certain, it represents the actuary’s best projection based on all available 

data. 

Attached please find the following: 

 A statement in favor of the suspension 

 A statement opposed to the suspension 

 an estimate of the effect the suspension will have on your benefit 

Please review the attached before making your decision. 

The proposed suspension will go into effect unless a majority of all eligible voters reject it. A failure 

to vote has the same effect on the outcome as a vote in favor of the proposed suspension.

Your ID number for the purpose of this vote is XXXXX. 

To register your vote, please go to www.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx or call (XXX) XXX-XXXX and enter your 

ID number and your vote. 

You must vote by XX/XX/2017 in order for your vote to count.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer  of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I,
Lance J. Millage, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tropicana Entertainment Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 31, 2010

/s/ LANCE J. MILLAGE Lance J. Millage Senior Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-50882

_____________________________________

FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

INCARNATE WORD HEALTH SERVICES INCORPORATED, doing business

as Incarnate Word Health System Liability Protection Program,

Individually; INCARNATE WORD HEALTH SYSTEM SELF-INSURANCE TRUST,

Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-855)

______________________________________________________

September 8, 1998

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for reasons

assigned in its opinion of September 18, 1997.
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 GBT Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mansour Khatib, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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:  June 5, 2020 | /s/ Mansour Khatib                                               
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Mansour Khatib,                                                  
|                    | Principal Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT TO
ASHLAND GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.
NONQUALIFIED DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN


WHEREAS, Ashland Global Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Ashland Global Holdings Inc. Nonqualified Defined Contribution Plan (effective October 1, 2016) (the “Plan”) to provide certain supplemental benefits for participating employees whose benefits under the Savings Plan (as defined in the Plan) are affected by the limitation on compensation imposed by Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code;
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”) is authorized to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 15, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) the Committee approved the amendment of the Plan to allow participants in the SERP plan, which was transferred to Valvoline Inc. on September 1, 2016 and frozen on September 30, 2016, to be treated as “Eligible Employees” who may participate in the Plan. 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the Effective Date, as follows:
1.    Section 2.17 of the Plan is revised to read in its entirety as follows: 
2.17    “Eligible Employee” means an employee of the Employer who is determined to be a member of a select group of management or highly compensated employees within the meaning of Sections 201(2), 301(a)(3) and 401(a)(1) of ERISA, and who is classified in base salary grade 21 or above.  
2.    Except as set forth above, all of the other provisions of the Plan remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has caused this amendment to be executed by the undersigned authorized officer of the Company, effective as of the Effective Date.
ASHLAND GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.


By: /s/ Anne T. Schumann
Name: Anne T. Schumann
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Human
    Resources and Information Technology
    Officer
#### Dehoff, Appellant, *v.*Northern Central Railway Company.

*Negligence*— Railroads—Contributory *negligence*— Crossings—“¡Stop, *look and listen.”*

The duty of care which the law imposes on a driver at a railroad crossing is not fulfilled by stopping at a point 100 feet from the track, where he cannot see on account of an embankment and a building, when at a point thirty feet from the track there is a clear view of 500 feet and ten feet from it a clear view of 1,000 feet.

Argued May 18, 1910.

Appeal, No. 134, Jan. T., 1910, *193by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Jan. T., 1910, No. 36, on verdict for defendant in case of John W. Dehoff v. The Northern Central Railway Company. Before Fell, C. J.,

July 1, 1910:

Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Wanner, J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Error assigned*was in giving binding instructions for defendant.

*E. Dean Ziegler,*with him *Jacob E, Weaver*and *Edward D. Ziegler,*for appellant.

*Richard E. Cochran*and *Smyser Williams,*for appellee, were not heard.

Per Curiam,

A verdict was directed for the defendant under the following state of facts as to which there was no dispute: The plaintiff was riding in a carriage and stopped, looked and listened when 105 feet from the crossing of the defendant’s road. At this place he could not see a train approaching the crossing because of a building on one side of the road on which he was driving and an embankment on the other side. He drove on at a slow trot, looking as he advanced, and his horse was struck by an engine on the nearest main track. Thirty feet from the crossing he had a clear view in the direction from which the engine came of over 500 feet, and ten feet from it a clear view of 1,000 feet. The duty of care which the law imposes on every driver at a railroad crossing is not fulfilled by stopping where he cannot see. It is his duty to stop where he can see. The plaintiff having failed to do this was properly adjudged to have been negligent.-

The judgment is-affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Hornby International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maureen
Brogan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
twelfth day of May, 2006


/s/ Maureen Brogan
---------------------------------
Maureen Brogan
Chief Financial Officer
BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTSMEN
LOCAL No. 7 PENSION PLAN

33 FitcH BOULEVARD
AUSTINTOWN, OHIO 44515
PHONE: 330/270-0453
TOLL FREE: 800/435-2388

January 6, 2017

‘The Honorable Jacob J. Lew
US. Secretary of the Treasury
U.S, Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20220

Re: | Withdrawal of Application for Suspension of Benefits under the Bricklayers
& Allied Craftsmen Local No. 7 Pension Plan

Dear Seeretary Lew:

As an authorized trustee of the Board of Trustees of the Bricklayers & Allied Crafismen Local
No. 7 Pension Plan (the “Pension Plan”), the plan sponsor of the Pension Plan, I respectfully
withdraw the application filed June 28, 2016 for suspension of benefits pursuant to Section
432(c)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”),and the parallel
language in Section 305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended (“ERISA”).

Respectfully submitted,

bron A raphe _ 1-6-1? -

Anthony Gradisher Date
Authorized Trustee
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 7 Pension Plan
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PATRICK LHERISON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 603 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2- 08 - 00 45 0- CV AR L I NGT ON ME M OR I AL HOS P I T AL AP P E L L ANT
V. PA TR I C I A H A R R I S , I N D I V I D U A LLY AND AS P E R S ONAL R E P R E S E NT AT I VE OFT HE EST ATE OF HARV EY HARRI S, D ECEA SED A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 4 8TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- AND NO. 0 2- 09 - 00 00 8- CV I N R E AR L I NGT ON ME M OR I AL HOS P I T AL R E L AT OR

----- ----- -- OR I GI NALP R OCE E DI NG

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT2 ... S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 3 .2 (f). 2 ----- ----- -- O n M a y2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , A rl i n g to n M e m o ri a l fi l e d i ts “ N o ti c e o f E n tryo f O rd e r” i n t hi s cou rt , t o w hi ch i tatt ac he d t he “Or derG r ant i ng Def end antA r l i ngt on M e m o ri a l H o sp i tal ’s O bj e c ti o n s to P l a i n ti ffs’ A m e n d e d E x p e rtR e p o rt , M o ti o n to Di s m i s sa nd F or At t or ne y Fe e s a nd Cos t s ” s i gn e d byt het r i a l c ou rto n M a y 14, 20 09 . Because t he t r i al court ’ s M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 9 o r dergr ant s al l oft he r el i ef
so ughtby A r l i ngt on M em or i al , w e d i sm i sst hi s app ea l an d pe t i t i on f orw r i tof
m a n d a m u s a s m o o t. 2 P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J ul y 20, 2009