alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



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



                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

          PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934



                           PROFESSIONAL BANCORP, INC.
                           --------------------------
              (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter



        PENNSYLVANIA                     0-11223                95-3701137
        ------------                     -------                ----------
   (State or other jurisdiction        (Commission            (IRS Employer
   of incorporation)                   File Number)          Identification No.)



       606 BROADWAY, SANTA MONICA, CA                          90401
       ------------------------------                          -----
  (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                  (Zip Code)




        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 310-458-1521
                                                            ------------








                                      - 1 -

<PAGE>


ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS


         Professional Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
First Professional Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), have entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release with St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company ("St. Paul"),
their Directors and Officers Liability insurance carrier. St. Paul paid Bancorp
and the Bank the total amount of $600,000 on December 22, 1997 in settlement of
Bancorp's and the Bank's claim for reimbursement of certain non-recurring
expenses in connection with the 1996 proxy contest and related litigation.


                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, the
registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



                                 PROFESSIONAL BANCORP, INC.


Dated:  January 9, 1998        By:   /s/ MELISSA LANFRE, Chief Financial Officer
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     MELISSA LANFRE, Chief Financial Officer
                                     



                                      - 2 -
ORIGINAL

PUBLIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

en, TRADE COjr
LSFvecewven once)

JUNO 4 201g
5703 6.2

SECRETARY

In the Matter of

ECM BioFilms, Inc.,
a corporation, also d/b/a
Enviroplastics Intemational,
Respondent.

DOCKET NO. 9358

licrecrsirnies

CRDER REQUIRING EXPEDITED RESPONSE

On June 4, 2014, Respondent ECM BioFilms, Inc. filed a Motion for Leave to Serve
Subpoenas Duces Tecum Bearing Commission Seal. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)
Complaint Counsel is hereby ORDERED to file any response to the Motion, on an expedited
basis, by 5:00 p.m., June 5, 2014.

ORDERED: DM thapact,
D. Michael Chappell
Chief Administrative Law Judge

Date: June 4, 2014
DISMISS; Opinion Filed April 4, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01321-CV

BRUCE AND JANET HENDRICK, Appellants

V.

JEREMIAH AND JEFFREY WHOLEY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-06322

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang, and Evans 

The Court has before it appellants’ March 15, 2013 unopposed motion to dismiss 

interlocutory appeal. We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

121321F.P05
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BRUCE AND JANET HENDRICK, 

Appellants

No. 05-12-01321-CV V.

JEREMIAH AND JEFFREY WHOLEY, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-06322.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Lang, Francis, and Evans.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee JEREMIAH AND JEFFREY WHOLEY recover their 

costs of this appeal from appellant BRUCE AND JANET HENDRICK, unless the parties’ 

agreement provides otherwise.

Judgment entered this 4th day of April, 2013.

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
Order filed, May 27, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00134-CV

____________

AGAR CORPORATION, INC., Appellant

V.

ELECTRO CIRCUITS INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND SURESH PARIKH, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-20480A

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due March 06, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On March 31, 2015, this court ordered the court reporter to file the 

record within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.
2

We order Alexandra McMillen, the substitute court reporter, to file the 

record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension 

will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate 

courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Alexandra McMillen does not timely file the 

record as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
#### Mary E. LIPMAN, Appellant, v. Julian ZUK, Appellee.

No. 70-693.

Disirict Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

*497Herbert L. Heiken, Miami, for appellant.

Koeppel, Stark, Marks & Newmark, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal by defendant Mary E. Lipman from an order of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, denying her motion to quash notice to take her deposition, and holding that service of process upon a horse trainer, as custodian and authorized agent of LEM Stables, constitute personal service upon the defendant-appellant. Plaintiff-appellee Zuk filed a complaint which generally alleged fraudulent concealment of assets by defendant-appellant, and requested damages and sequestration, under § 68.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Appellant seeks reversal of the order appealed on the grounds that the service of process made upon appellant’s agent pursuant to § 48.071, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. was not sufficient service to subject her to the jurisdiction of the courts of Florida. We agree and reverse.

The statute provides, in part:

> “When any natural person or partnership not residing or having his or their principal place of business in this state engages in business in this state, process may be served on the person who is in charge of any business in which the defendant is engaged within this state at the time of service, including agents soliciting orders for goods, wares, merchandise or services. Any process so served is as valid as if served personally on the nonresident person or partnership engaging in business in this state in any action against the person or partnership arising out of such business. * * *”

The record does not show that appellant has carried on any business in Florida which is connected with or out of which appellee’s cause of action arose. The complaint shows that the cause of action upon which appellee is suing in Florida is based upon promissory note which appellant’s husband gave to the appellee while the parties were residents of Massachusetts. It appears that at the time the instant suit was commenced the persons involved were still residents of Massachusetts.

Non-resident service of process statutes are strictly construed, and the party invoking the statutes has the burden of clearly showing that the situation presented justifies application of the statutes. Sausman Diversified Investments, Inc. v. Cobbs Co., Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 873.

Appellee has not carried his burden of showing that appellant was doing business in Florida so as to make her amenable to service of process under § 48.071, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See: Young Spring & Wire Corporation v. Smith, Fla. 1965, 176 So.2d 903; Unterman v. Brown, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So. 2d 522. For the reasons stated the trial court erred in entering the order of appeal.

Reversed.
Exhibit 10.2


 


ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION


OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT


 


This ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Assignment”) is made and entered into this 27th day of February, 2014 by IREIT
Business Manager & Advisor, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, (“Assignor”), and IREIT Coral Springs North Hills, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.AM Coral Springs,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Seller”) and Assignor have previously entered into that certain Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated as of November 18, 2013 and Reinstatement and Modification of Agreement For Purchase and Sale of Real
Property dated as of February 5, 2014 (the “Purchase Agreement”), relating to the sale of a certain shopping center
commonly known as North Hills Square Shopping Center located at 4650 University Drive, Coral Springs, Florida.


 


B.Assignor desires
to assign its interest in and to the Purchase Agreement to Assignee upon the terms and conditions contained herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the receipt of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by Assignee to Assignor, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by Assignor, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Recitals. The foregoing recitals are, by this reference, incorporated into the body of this
Assignment as if the same had been set forth in the body hereof in their entirety.



 


		2.	Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns, conveys, transfers, and sets over to
Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest in and to the Purchase Agreement. Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing
Assignment and assumes, and agrees to perform, all duties, obligations, liabilities, indemnities, covenants, and agreements of
Assignor set forth in the Purchase Agreement.



 


		3.	Counterparts. This document may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
may be executed by any one or more of the parties hereto, but all of which must constitute one instrument and shall be binding
and effective when all parties hereto have executed at least one counterpart.



 


		4.	Successors. This Assignment shall be binding upon and for the benefit of the parties hereto
and their respective Successors and Assigns.



 


 


[signature page to follow]




    	 



    	 



    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor
and Assignee have caused this Assignment to be executed as of the day and year first written above.


 


	ASSIGNOR:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
        IREIT Business Manager & Advisor, Inc.,

        an Illinois corporation

	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	/s/ Lou Quilici
	Name:	 	Lou Quilici
	Title:	 	
        Senior Vice
        President

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	ASSIGNEE:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
        IREIT Coral Springs North Hills, L.L.C.,

        a Delaware limited liability company

	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	
        Inland Real Estate Income Trust, Inc.,

        a Maryland corporation, its sole member

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Mary J. Pechous
	 	 	Name:	 	Mary J. Pechous
	 	 	Title:	 	Assistant Secretary
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 Quarterly Report of 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry E. Lentych, 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 sections 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/LARRY E. LENTYCH


Larry E. Lentych


Chief Financial Officer


July 22, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7724 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7724

   To prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement, administer, or 
 enforce the Presidential Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From 
 the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census, issued on July 21, 
                                 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2020

    Ms. Meng (for herself, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Vela, Ms. 
 Shalala, Mr. Payne, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Gallego, Ms. 
Lofgren, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Rush, Ms. Norton, Mr. Nadler, Ms. 
Haaland, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Ocasio-
 Cortez, Mr. Lowenthal, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, 
    Mr. Welch, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Courtney, Ms. Clarke of New York, 
  Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Pressley, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Carson of 
Indiana, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Takano, Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. Titus, Mr. Scott of 
 Virginia, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Soto, Ms. Adams, Mr. Sires, Mr. Panetta, 
   and Ms. Garcia of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement, administer, or 
 enforce the Presidential Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From 
 the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census, issued on July 21, 
                                 2020.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Funds for Apportionment Exclusion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

    No Federal funds, resources, or fees made available to any Federal 
agency may be used to implement, administer, enforce, or carry out 
(including through the issuance of any regulations) any of the policy 
changes set forth in the Presidential Memorandum on Excluding Illegal 
Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census, issued on 
July 21, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
255 La. 156

#### Herman D. HARVEY v. Jesse Walter SURLES.

No. 50279.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Herman D. Harvey applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of East Carroll. 228 So.2d 167.

Not considered. The application was not timely filed. See Art. VII, Section 11, La. Const.
FILED

January 13, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

OCTOBER SESSION, 1997

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) No. 02C01-9610-CR-00369

Appellee )

) SHELBY COUNTY

vs. )

) Hon. Arthur T. Bennett, Judge

DONALD P. SPICER, )

) (Rape of a child; assault)

Appellant )

DISSENTING OPINION

I respectfully dissent. While I concur with the majority in concluding "that the

court below erred in granting the State's motion to consolidate," I find the error

complained of to be of such prejudicial dimensions as to require reversal. The facts

of this case are analogous to the facts in State v. Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d 935 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1995). In Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d at 945, this court condemned the practice of

joining two open-dated indictments involving two different victims for a single trial. 

As in Hoyt, the open-dated indictments in the present case, i.e., “July 1, 1993 to

December 31, 1993" and “March 1, 1994 to March 4, 1994,” permit the State’s

introduction of other unindicted sexual crimes or bad acts by the appellant in its

consolidated case-in-chief upon the trial of the other. See Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d at 945

(citing State v. Rickman, 876 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tenn. 1994)). “Because there are

two counts involving two different victims, evidence of multiple sexual offenses

would be admissible under each count.” Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d at 945.

The rule of Hoyt clearly illustrates why these indictments should not have

been consolidated. In the present case, both victims testified to a multitude of

sexual encounters, assaults and penetrations occurring both within the indicted

period and outside the indicted period. It is difficult to believe that L.A.S.’s testimony

that “[it happened] every week” and that “[it happened] more than one time” had no
2

prejudicial effect upon the jury verdict regarding A.N.S. Likewise, it is also

inconceivable to imagine that A.N.S.’s testimony that “[it happened] [s]o many

[times] I can’t count” had no effect regarding the count involving L.A.S. In other

words, “[t]he ‘taint’ of such evidence introduced under one count would bolster the

second joined offense and vice versa.” Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d at 945. “Failure to sever,

under these circumstances, invite[s] reliance upon the propensity notion.” Id. at

946. I find that the appellant was unduly prejudiced by the joinder of these offenses. 

For these reasons, I would vacate the conviction for rape of a child and

remand for a new trial. 

____________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
<PAGE>   1



Exhibit 15.  Letter regarding unaudited interim financial information from KPMG 
             Peat Marwick LLP


Independent Auditors' Review Report



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
First American Corporation:

We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheets of First American Corporation
and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
income statements, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the
three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998 and 1997. These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's
management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of First American Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997; and the related consolidated income
statements, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated July 10, 1998, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP          
--------------------------
October 15, 1998
Nashville, Tennessee
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.4

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
our report on U.S. Communications, Inc. dated April 21, 1995
included in the Form 8-K/A-2 of SA Telecommunications, Inc. (now
known as SA Telecommunications, Inc.) dated July 31, 1995.  We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statement.

                              Duff and Anderson, P.C.

                              /s/ Duff and Anderson, P.C.

Levelland, Texas
March 1, 1996
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 10, 2021

No. 04-20-00611-CV

INTEREST OF L.J.L. AND J.W.L., MINOR CHILDREN

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08129

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On October 27, 2021, Appellant filed his reply brief. On October 29, 2021, Appellee 

requested leave to file a sur-reply brief. Sur-replies may be permitted “whenever justice 

requires.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7. As Appellee argues, justice requires a sur-reply because 

Appellant’s reply raised a new issue. But as Appellant argues, the new issue has not been 

identified; the need for a sur-reply has not been established. Without a clear need for a sur-reply, 

we decline to grant leave to file one. See In re Estate of Washington, 289 S.W.3d 362, 370 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied). 

Appellee’s motion is DENIED. 

It is so ORDERED November 10, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
#### Dianne DORMINEY, Appellant, v. Fergus Joseph BRADY and Bobby D. Dorminey, Appellees.

No. 69-193.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 7, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Hon. Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

December 1, 2010

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2010-5091

NORMA C. SULLIVAN AND DONALD E. SULLIVAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v

.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 29, 2010 Nonprecedential Opinion

______________________
Please make the following change:

Page 5, line 26, change “loses” to --losses--.
#### John Lee ROACH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43241.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 268 So.2d 580.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
259 La. 809

#### Alvin P. LICHTENTAG v. The MILLERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS.

No. 51686.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: Alvin P. Lichtentag, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 250 So.2d 105.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
### MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

FAA - 2011 - 0453 Docket Number

20 08 - SW - 16 -AD Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained

in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Deu tschland No. EC135 - 71A - 024, August 6, 2002
**MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.