alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA)

Utility/Internet/Broadband/Property Tax/Homeowners Fees Payment Assistance – Term Sheet

Criteria Terms

Brief description As part of the original submission to Treasury, OHFA created the Utility Assistance Plus (UAP) program, which 

included five program design elements that provided funds to resolve delinquent payments and make up to six 

months of prospective payments: utilities, insurance, internet, HOA fees and liens, and property taxes.

Beginning two full months after Treasury’s approval of these changes, the UAP program will only include three 

program design elements: utilities, HOA fees and liens, and property taxes (no longer providing funds to resolve 

internet access services or insurance.

Beginning on January 1, 2024, the UAP program will only include one program design element: property taxes 

(no longer providing funds to resolve utility services or non-escrowed homeowner and condominium 

association fees).

On April 30, 2024, the UAP program will close and no longer include any program design elements.

HAF funds may be used to pay delinquent amounts, including interest or reasonably required legal fees, under 

circumstances in which a delinquency threatens access to utility or internet services, so long as those program 

design elements are part of the UAP program.

Funds may be used to pay prospective charges for up to the first 6 months following approval if the homeowner 

is unable to make such payments.

Maximum amount of 

assistance per homeowner

Each Homeowner will be eligible for up to $10,000 through this program with respect to the applicant’s primary 

residence.

Homeowner eligibility 

criteria and documentation 

requirements

Documentation requirements

• Adjusted gross income on the 1040 tax return for the most recent tax year,
Criteria Terms

• Paystubs, W2s, or other wage statements, IRS Form 1099s, tax filings, depository institution statements 

demonstrating regular income, or an attestation from an employer for the most recent thirty (30) days, 

which is then multiplied by twelve (12) to get an annualized amount,

• Evidence that the average income for the census tract in which the applicant lives is equal to or less 

than $60,685, OR

• Documentation that the applicant has been determined income eligible for another state or federal 

program, so long as the income limits for that program are less than or equal to those for UAP. The 

following programs are known to have income limits that are less than or equal to UAP:

o Medicaid,

o Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and

o Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

Loan eligibility criteria 

specific to the program

N/A

Form of assistance Assistance will be structured as a grant.

Payment requirements Funds will paid directly to the service provider, internet provider, taxing authority, or other applicable thirdparty authorized to collect eligible charges.
EXHIBIT 11


                DDL ELECTRONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 
                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                            (Unaudited)


                                                Three Months Ended
                                                   September 30,
                                             ------------------------
                                              1997              1996
                                             ------            ------
    PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net loss                                 $  (128,000)      $  (725,000)
                                          ==========        ==========
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                      24,591,103        23,017,458
Assumed exercise of options and warrants
  net of shares assumed reacquired           132,751             -
                                          ----------        ----------
Average common shares and common 
  share equivalents                       24,723,854        23,017,458
                                          ==========        ==========


Primary earnings (loss) per share            $  (.01)          $  (.03)
                                                ====              ====



    FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net loss                                 $  (128,000)      $  (725,000)
Add back net interest related to
  convertible subordinated debentures         34,000            34,000
                                          ----------        ----------
Net loss for fully    
  diluted computation                    $   (94,000)      $  (691,000)
                                          ==========        ==========
Weighted average number of common 
  shares outstanding                      24,591,103        23,017,458
Assumed exercise of options and warrants
  net of shares assumed reacquired 
  under treasury stock method using
  period end market price, if higher
  than average market price                  132,751           309,562
Assumed conversion of convertible 
  subordinated debentures                    310,206           310,206
                                          ----------        ----------
Average fully diluted shares              25,034,060        23,637,226
                                          ==========        ==========

Fully diluted earnings 
  (loss) per share                            $ (.01)          $  (.03)
                                                ====              ====
#### Cecil W. MILLER, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7263.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 31, 2002.

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Cecil W. Miller, Jr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Miller has not responded.

Miller filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) from a May 22, 2001 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decision, which the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims received more than 120 days after the BVA mailed its decision. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed Miller’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Miller had filed his NOA more than 120 days after the BVA final decision. Miller appeals that order to this court.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Veterans Court. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). Miller’s appeal does not satisfy any of the grounds for invoking this court’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction did not address or otherwise depend on any issue of validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation, nor did Miller raise any argument concerning the validity or interpretation of any such provision. *See Albun v. Brown,*9 F.3d 1528 (Fed.Cir.1993) (appeal seeking review of Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ dismissal of appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on appellant’s failure to submit timely NOA did not fall within this court’s jurisdiction).

In his response, Miller checked “yes” in response to the question whether the decision involved the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation, but states only that “[ijssue not timely filed” and asks this court to “reinstate [his] case for final disposition.” Miller fails to make any specific claims concerning constitutional issues or the validity or interpretation of any statutes or regulations. Miller’s appeal is therefore not within this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

*477(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Douglas Fairbanks LOFTIN, Appellant, v. William R. HEIDTMAN, Appellee.

No. 69-547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 22, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Motion Granted and Order filed July 27, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 13
- 00551
- CV

IN RE STATE FARM LLO YDS

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Trial Court Cause Nos. 2010
- 61039 11th District Court Harris County, Texas


### ORDER
On June 26, 2013, relator, State Farm Lloyds, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Mike D. Miller, Judge of the 11th District Court in Harris County, Texas, to set aside his order dated June 24, 2013, entered in trial court cause number 2010

- 61 039, styled Candelario and Maria Fuentes v. State Farm Lloyds . Relator claims the trial court abused its discretion in compelling production of irrelevant and burdensome disco very and it has no adequate remedy by appeal.Relator has also filed a motion for a temporary stay of the trial court’s order. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. The real parties

- in

- interest filed a response in opposition to the motion. It appears from the facts stated in the petition that relator ’ s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted.
We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and ORDER the trial court’s June 24, 2013 order in trial court cause number 2010

- 61039, styled Candelario and Maria Fuentes v. State Farm Lloyds , STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. In addition, the c ourt requests the real parties

- in

- interest, Candelario and Maria Fuentes , to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before July 5, 2013.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.

2
#### Daniel Pa HUD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Ms. Lauralyn J. Remo

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation Re: DOT Letter of December 10, 2012 Docket DOT

- OST

- 2007

- 007 Application of Baltia Air Lines, Inc. Section 411 02 Certificate Authority Dear Ms. Remo: Baltia Air Lines, Inc. (Baltia) is currently in FAA Air Carrier Certification at the East Michigan Flight Standards District Office ( East Michigan FSDO)

. Baltia withdrew its application from the New York FSDO on O ctober 15 and filed its application at the East Michigan FSDO on October 17. The move to the East Michigan FSDO has not diminished Baltia’s FAA certification progress. Under the East Michigan FSDO, Baltia remains under the same FAA Certification Standar dization and Evaluation Team (CSET). Among the reasons for moving the certification to East Michigan FSDO were operational considerations . Baltia’s aircraft maintenance is performed at Kalitta Maintenance facility in Oscoda, Michigan, and Baltia will be t raining its crewmembers and dispatchers at Kalitta Air facilities at Willow Run Airport . B oth of these major activities will be under the East Michigan FSDO ’s oversight

. This communication is sent t o inform the Department of Baltia’s procedural move . A fo rmal response to your letter of December 10, 2012 , will follow. December 14, 2012 ___________/s/_____________________ Steffanie J. Lewis , General Counsel Baltia Air Lines, Inc. 1915 Eye Street, NW, 5 th FL Washington, DC 20006

- 2118 Service List attached.Service by email has been made this date to the following.

jeffrey.manley@united.com; carl.nelson@aa.com; howard_kass@usairways.com; rbkeiner@crowell.com; nssparks@fedex.com; recohn@hhlaw.com; prrizzi@hhlaw.com; msinick@ssd.com; hkam en@coair.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; dvaughan@kelleydrye.com; rpommer@atlasair.com; ben.graves@evergreenaviation.com; daniel.commins@evergreenaviation.com; sametta.c.barnett@delta.com; scott.mcclain@delta.com; mark.treadaway@mwaa.com; donald.fields@mwaa.com; sbrocchi@panynj.gov; john.krepp@faa.gov __________/S/__________________________
Steffanie J. Lewis December 14, 2012
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 Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2011 (the Report), I, Taylor Z. Guo,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|               |  | 
|March 30, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Taylor Z. Guo      
|               |  |  |  | Taylor Z. Guo          
|               |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 191

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

MISSION CONSOLIDATED

IN DEPEN DENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

, Appellant,

v.

FRANCISCO GARCIA SR.

AND MARIA GARCIA

, Appellee s

.

On appeal from the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa

, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

On May 26, 2021, a ppellees Francisco Garcia, Sr. and Maria Garcia filed a petition

for writ of mandamus in the trial court . Appellant Mission Consolidated Independent

School District filed a plea to the jurisdiction . The trial court denied the plea, and appellant2

appealed.

On November 11, 2022, appellees filed a “ Motion For Nonsuit Without Prejudice,”

stating they “no longer desire[] to prosecute their cause of action against [appellant], and

requested a Non

- suit without prejudice.” Appellees requested this Court “enter a nonsuit

on all claims against” appellant. We requested a response, and o n December 5, 2022,

appellants responded: “ These appellees who filed no brief now seek the right to relief.

They want to nonsuit their entire dispute so endeth the entire beef .”

We construe appellees’ motion for nonsuit as a motion to dismiss the appeal, and

we construe appellant’s response as unopposed. Having considered the documents on

file and the unopposed motion, this Court is of the opinion that the motion should be

gra nted, and the appeal should be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 42.3 (a)

. Accordingly,

we grant the ap pellees’ unopposed motion to dismiss, and the appeal is hereby

dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained

. 1

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

8 th day of December

, 202 2

.

1 On November 21, 2022, appellees filed a motion for extension of time to file a brief. Because

we dismiss the appeal, we dismiss appellees’ motion for extension of time as moot

.
NO. 07-11-00342-CR, 07-11-00343-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 26, 2012

LARAY DEALY KELLY, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;

NO. A4333-1006, A4334-1006; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

	Appellant, Laray Dealy Kelly, entered pleas of guilty to two separate indictments alleging injury to a child.[footnoteRef:1]  Appellant’s pleas of guilty resulted in him being placed on two years deferred adjudication community supervision on each case.  Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant guilty in each case.  After hearing the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty of each offense, and following a punishment hearing, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Corrections for a term of eight years on each case.  Appellant has appealed his convictions.  We affirm. [1:  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(3) (West 2011).] 

Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response.  Appellant has not filed a response.  By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  SeePenson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.[footnoteRef:2] [2:  Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.] 

								Mackey K. Hancock

                                                       Justice

Do not publish.  

2
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C ARLOS R

AM OS-SANC HEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50026

D.C . No. 3:09-c r-02986-GT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gordon Thom

pson, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos R am os-Sanc h e z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 14-m onth c onse c utive se nte nc e im pose d upon re voc ation of supe rvise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . R am os-Sanc h e z first c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to (i) 

# FIL ED OCT 1 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).inde pe nde ntly c a lc ulate the Se n te nc ing Guide line s ra nge , (ii) c onside r the a pplic a ble 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c tors, othe r tha n de te rre n c e , and (iii) e xpla in a d e quate ly

the se nte nc e im

pose d. W e disa gre e . The re c ord re fle c ts tha t the d istric t c o urt a dopte d the c orre c tly -c a lc ulate d Guide l ine s ran ge provide d by the probat ion offic e r, a de quate ly c o nside re d the a pplic a ble se c tion 3553(a

) se nte nc ing fa c t ors, a nd suffic i e ntly

e xpla ine d the se nte nc e . S e e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). R am os-Sanc h e z a lso c o nte nds tha t his se nte n c e is substa

ntive ly unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing Ram osSanc he z ’ s se nte n c e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 14- m onth c onse c utive se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s a n d the 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e ) se nte nc i ng fa c tors. Se e U.S.S.G. § 7B 1 .3(f); Gall , 552 U.S. a t 51. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 0 0 2 6 2
<PAGE>





                               Amendment No. 11 to
                     EUGENE R. MCGRATH EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         WHEREAS, Eugene R. McGrath (the "Employee") and Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Employment Agreement
effective September 1, l990 (the "Agreement");

         WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement desire to amend the Agreement to
increase the basic salary payable to the Employee; and

         WHEREAS, paragraph 12 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may
be amended from time to time by a written instrument executed by the Company and
the Employee;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing the parties hereto
agree as follows:

         1. The Agreement is amended, effective September 1, 2000, to increase
the Employee's basic salary set forth in clause (i) of paragraph 3(a) of the
Agreement from $1,000,000 per annum to $1,090,000 per annum, subject to all the
terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement relating to the basic salary.

         2. In all other respects, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect as amended hereby.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized officer and its Corporate seal to be affixed
hereto, and the Employee has hereto set his hand the day and year set forth
below.

                              CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.


                              By:______________________________________
                                             Charles F. Soutar
                                         Executive Vice President


                                 ---------------------------------------
                                                Eugene R. McGrath


Dated:  July 20, 2000

Attest:

Approved by the Board
the 20th day of July, 2000.


---------------------------------
         Archie M. Bankston
         Secretary
#### LAMAR DEAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. X. A. KEATON et al., Respondents.

No. 40216.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 17, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed.