alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

     <ARTICLE>                        BD
     <LEGEND>                         0
     <RESTATED>
     <CIK>                            0
     <NAME>                           0
     <MULTIPLIER>                     1
     <CURRENCY>                       U.S. DOLLARS
     <PERIOD-START>                   SEP-01-1999
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                    QUARTER
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                FEB-29-2000
     <PERIOD-END>                     NOV-30-1999
     <EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1
     <CASH>                           3,957,158
     <RECEIVABLES>                    345,993
     <SECURITIES-RESALE>              0
     <SECURITIES-BORROWED>            0
     <INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>              8,343,552
     <PP&E>                           215,321
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                   13,840,030
     <SHORT-TERM>                     0
     <PAYABLES>                       503,295
     <REPOS-SOLD>                     0
     <SECURITIES-LOANED>              0
     <INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>               0
     <LONG-TERM>                      0
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
     <PREFERRED>                      0
     <COMMON>                         8,886,243
     <OTHER-SE>                       3,828,278
     [TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY]   13,840,030
     <TRADING-REVENUE>               (341,716)
     <INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>             90,826
     <COMMISSIONS>                    90,826
     <INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>    337609
     <FEE-REVENUE>                    447,304
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>               510
     <COMPENSATION>                   281,411
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                 (456,093)
     <INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>      (456,093)
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
     <CHANGES>                        0
     <NET-INCOME>                    (337,533)
     <EPS-BASIC>                   (.04)
     <EPS-DILUTED>                   (.04)



</TABLE>
#### H. Lanier RICHEY v. VENTURE OIL AND GAS CORP. (H & W Oil & Gas Co., Inc.).

No. 60196.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1977.

In re: H & W Oil and Gas Co., Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Plaquemines. 346 So.2d 875.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert F. Orlich, President and Chief Executive 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 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.

/s/ ROBERT F. ORLICH Robert F. Orlich President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
February 24, 2010

The
foregoing is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
#### Fred SILAS, Petitioner, v. Hon. Warren H. EDWARDS, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Division A, Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-815.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 11, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1971.

Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and Maurice M. Paul, Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

. This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition. The writ is denied and the Rule Nisi heretofore entered is discharged on the authority of *442Woodward v. Edwards, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 244 So.2d 438, opinion filed December 11, 1970.

WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ„ concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHERIE SAFAPOU

, individually, and as the parent and natural guardian of J.S.D., a minor,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MARIN COUNTY

, California; et al.,

Defendant s

- Appellee s

. No. 1 8

- 15387

D.C. No. 4:17

- cv

- 07042

- PJH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE

, CANBY , and TASHIMA , Circuit Judges.

Cherie Safapou appeals pro se from the district cou rt’s judgment dismissing

her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of

state court divorce, custody, and restraining order proceedings

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 15387

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter , 668

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Noel v.

Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 20 0 3) (dismissal under the Rooker

- Feldman

doctrine)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Safapou’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of state court

divorce, custody, and restraining orders

, and raise s issues that are “inextricably

intertwined” with those orders. Noel , 341 F.3d at 1158, 1163; see also Cooper v.

Ramos , 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) ( cla ims are “ inextricably intertwined ”

for purposes of the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine where “the relief requested in the

federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling ”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Carmon a v. Carmona , 603 F.3d

1041, 1050

- 51 (9th Cir. 2010) ( Rooker

- Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claims

seeking to enjoin state family court orders )

.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court

, s ee United

States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) , or matters not specifically and

distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d

983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7946-7947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4202]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 199

[Docket No. PS-152; Amendment 199-14]
RIN 2137-AC95


Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Confirmation of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule that amends the Drug and Alcohol Testing Rules to allow the 
optional reporting of drug and alcohol testing results to RSPA by 
computer disk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published on December 12, 1996 at 
61 FR 65364 is effective April 11, 1997.


[[Page 7947]]



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 12, 1996, RSPA published a direct final rule, 61 FR 
65364-65365, titled ``Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results.'' 
In that publication, RSPA stated that if it did not receive adverse 
comments by February 10, 1997, it would publish a confirmation notice 
within 15 days. RSPA received no adverse comments. Therefore, this 
document confirms that the direct final rule cited above will become 
effective on April 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Fell, (202) 366-6205, regarding 
the subject matter of this document, or the Dockets Unit (202) 366-
4453, for copies of this document or other information in the docket.

    Issued in Washington, DC February 13, 1997.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 97-4202 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven S. Skalicky, Executive Vice President and 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 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.

| |  |                                                     
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ STEVENS. SKALICKY                               
| |  |                                                     
| |  | Steven S. Skalicky                                  
| |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: February 27, 2009

The foregoing is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of this the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



---
LKQ-EX10.19_2013.12.31-10K


Exhibit 10.19




EXHIBIT B




M E M O R A N D U M 


	
			
	TO:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	FROM:
	Compensation Committee
	 

	 
	 
	 

	DATE:
	____________, 2014
	 

	 
	 
	 

	RE:
	2014 Bonus Program
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 






You have been selected to participate in the LKQ Corporation Management Incentive Plan ("MIP") for purposes of your potential 2014 bonus.  The potential bonus described in this letter is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the MIP (a copy of which is attached to this letter).


		
	Performance Period:
	January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014




		
	Performance Goals:
	The diluted earnings per share of LKQ Corporation ("EPS") for the Performance Period; provided, however, that EPS shall be increased to the extent that EPS was reduced in accordance with GAAP by objectively determinable amounts due to:




1. A change in accounting policy or GAAP;
2. Dispositions of assets or businesses; 
3. Asset impairments; 
4. Amounts incurred in connection with any financing; 
5. Losses on interest rate swaps resulting from mark to market adjustments or discontinuing hedges; 
6. Board approved restructuring or similar charges including but not limited to charges in conjunction with or in anticipation of an acquisition; 
7. Losses related to environmental, legal, product liability or other contingencies; 
8. Changes in tax laws; 
9. Losses from discontinued operations; and 
10. Other extraordinary, unusual or infrequently occurring items as disclosed in the Company's financial statements or filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.









In addition, the Compensation Committee shall adjust the Performance Goals or other features of the Award that relate to the value or number of the shares of common stock of the Company to reflect any stock dividend, stock split, recapitalization, combination or exchange of shares, or other similar changes in such stock.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may reduce the Actual Award payable to you below that which otherwise would be payable pursuant to the Payout Formula or may eliminate the Actual Award.




		
	Target Award:
	___% of Base Salary




Payout Formula:            
            
		
	EPS ($)
	Percentage of Base Salary


		
	Less than
	0
EXHIBIT 11
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended         Six Months Ended
                                               ----------------------    ----------------------
                                               March 29,    March 30,    March 29,    March 30,
                                                 1997         1996         1997         1996
                                               ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

<S>                                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Primary
-------
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding            1,309,800    1,297,095    1,309,746    1,296,930
Dilutive Effect on Stock Options                      --      260,056           --      179,889
                                               ------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and Equivalent
 Shares Outstanding                            1,309,800    1,557,151    1,309,746    1,476,819
                                               ================================================


Fully Diluted
-------------
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding            1,309,800    1,297,095    1,309,746    1,296,930
Dilutive Effect on Stock Options                      --      266,228           --      193,991
                                               ------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and Equivalent
 Shares Outstanding                            1,309,800    1,563,323    1,309,746    1,490,921
                                               ================================================
</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7346 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 2020 recovery 

rebates to certain individuals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

2020 recovery rebates to certain individuals, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2020 RECOVERY REBATE FOR CERTAIN INDI4 VIDUALS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6428(g) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN SPOUSES.— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7346 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1)(B) 

2 shall not apply in the case where at least 1 

3 spouse satisfies paragraph (1)(A). 

4 ‘‘(B) RECOVERY REBATE AMOUNT.—In the 

5 case of individuals filing a joint return with re6 spect to subparagraph (A), the amount of the 

7 credit allowed by subsection (a)(1) shall be 

8 equal to the sum of $1200.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made under 

10 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact11 ment of Public Law 116–136. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3648

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Franklin Alberto Mendez Alvarado

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: May 10, 2017

Filed: May 15, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Franklin Alberto Mendez Alvarado pled guilty to illegally re-entering the

United States as a previously deported alien, subsequent to a conviction for an

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging his sentence, suggesting that an error under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(b)(1)(B) occurred during the change-of-plea hearing, and asserting that

the district court1

 did not use the correct Guidelines Manual for sentencing purposes. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the issues raised by counsel lack

merit. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (plain-error

standard applies where Rule 11 error was not preserved by timely objection; defendant

must show that, but for such error, he would not have entered plea); U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.11 (court shall use Guidelines Manual in effect on date defendant is sentenced,

unless that edition violates ex post facto clause). Having independently reviewed the

record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
#### Gustavo E. MUSTELIER and Amelia C. Mustelier, his wife, Appellants, v. CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 72-1174.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. RONALD EUSTACH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:00-cr-00067-CMC-2; 4:02-cv-04279-CMC-2) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Eustach, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald Eustach seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Eustach has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Eustach’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0408. CAROLYN ROBINS v. DOUGLAS COUNTY.

In June 2023, Carolyn Robins was convicted of violating several Douglas

County ordinancesrelated to pet ownership. Robinsthen filed a petition for appellate

review in the Douglas County State Court. The state court dismissed her petition as

untimely, and Robins then filed this direct appeal, seeking to challenge the state

court’s order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), “[a]ppealsfrom decisions of the superior courts

reviewing decisions of . . . lower courts by petition for review” must be made by

filing an application for discretionary appeal in this Court. See also Consolidated

Government of Columbus v. Barwick, 274 Ga. 176, 177 (1) (549 SE2d 73) (2001)

(construing former OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1)). And where a discretionary application

isrequired, failure to complywith thatrequirement deprivesthis Court of jurisdiction.

Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564)

(2021). See also Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). Thus, because Robins failed to follow the proper appellate

procedure, her appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 28, 2023

11/28/2023
Record of Ex Parte Contacts 

Docket No. FAA- ;l. bt 'J.- ) ~ 41 f Directorate Identifier: 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate 

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines "Ex Parte Contacts. ") · 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE 

DAH Victor Zakak 15 Sep2012 Concur. 

NTSB Pierre Scarfo 15 Sep 2012 Concur. 

ATA Joe White 10 Oct 2012 Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information:
#### Ex parte Wesley Dean WILLIAMS, Jr., et al.

77-570.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 30, 1978.

ALMON, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### George W. JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Walter L. McCANN v. BATON ROUGE MILLWORK, INC., et al.

No. 54336.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Don H. Schmieder applying for Certiorari or Writ of Review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 763.

Application denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.