alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





(Date of report)August 19, 2014(Date of earliest event reported)August 18, 2014





ONEOK PARTNERS, L.P.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-1220293-1120873(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)





100 West Fifth Street; Tulsa, OK


(Address of principal executive offices)





74103


(Zip code)





(918) 588-7000


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[] Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





[] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))










---




Item 7.01Regulation FD DisclosureOn August 18, 2014, we announced we will participate in the Citi One-on-One Master Limited Partnership/Midstream Infrastructure Conference on Wednesday and Thursday, August 20-21, 2014, in Las Vegas, Nevada.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.The materials utilized at the conference will be made available on the ONEOK Partners website,www.oneokpartners.com, on Wednesday, August 20, beginning at 5 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time).The information disclosed in this Item 7.01, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits(d)ExhibitsExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated August 18, 2014.


2


---




SIGNATURE





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





ONEOK Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.,General PartnerDate:August 19, 2014By:/s/ Derek S. ReinersDerek S. ReinersSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated August 18, 2014.











4
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0290. KENNETH COCKRELL v. THE STATE.

A jury found Kenneth Cockrell guilty of several offenses, including malice

murder, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. See Cockrell v. State, 281 Ga.

536 (640 SE2d 262) (2007). Thereafter, Cockrell filed a “Petition for Appropriate

Relief” in the trial court challenging his trial counsel’s failure to communicate a plea

offer. The trial court dismissed the motion, and Cockrell filed this application for

discretionary appeal.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” See Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See

OCGA § 17-10-30 (b); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012)

(Hunstein, C. J., concurring);see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (322 SE2d 711)

(1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a sentence of death

or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder”). Accordingly, 

February 06, 2018
Cockrell’s application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition.

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.

02/06/2018
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification



I, Francie P. Reppy, certify that:



I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.;



Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



The registrants other certifying officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and
have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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:



(a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



Date: August 10, 2005



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Francie P. Reppy                                
|Francie P. Reppy                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                       



35
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, (the Report) of
First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc., the (Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below 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) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  November 6, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles K. Graham                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | Charles K. Graham                                
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer/Director   
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                    
|                        |  | 
|Date:  November 6, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Francie P. Reppy                             
|                        |  |  |  | Francie P. Reppy                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |  |  | (Chief Financial Officer)                        



34
#### CONTINENTAL MORTGAGE INVESTORS, a Massachusetts business trust, Petitioner, v. Charles H. BLANCHARD d/b/a Blanchard Construction Company, Respondent.

No. 38330.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24,1969.

Thurston A. Shell, of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for petitioner.

Bert H. Lane, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks by conflict certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reversing and remanding with directions a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida. The history, factual background, dictum and decision sought to be reviewed are reported as Blanchard v. Continental Mortgage Investors, 217 So.2d 586.

Writ of certiorari was issued and argument heard, and the court having examined the petition, record and briefs, it appears that the writ was improvidently issued for the reason that this court is without jurisdiction in the premises.

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause is discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

DREW, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<S>                               <C>
<ARTICLE>           UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL Group's 
and FPL's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 30, 1998 and 
condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three months 
ended March 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements.

<CIK>                             0000753308
<NAME>                            FPL Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          $8,629
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>        $2,072
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>             $1,042
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>               $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                       $728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    $12,471
<COMMON>                               $2
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          $3,029
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                $1,825
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     $4,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  $0
<PREFERRED>                          $226
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               $2,950
<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>     $4,439
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>     $12,471
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          $1,338
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  $50
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         $1,120
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         $1,120
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              $218
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     $7
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       $171
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              $63
<NET-INCOME>                         $108
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            $4
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        $108
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              $86
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>              $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               $454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       $0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                       $0.63

        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,941,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,116,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   562,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,973,000
<PP&E>                                       2,959,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,569,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,215,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,490,000
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        83,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,510,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,215,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,212,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,925,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                46,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                314,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (31,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            345,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   345,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Interest of E. P., a Child.

No. 73-76.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

*239Charles W. Musgrove and James M. Adams, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant was adjudged delinquent in the juvenile court on a charge of manslaughter by culpable negligence. The sole issue on appeal is whether appellant, having been 12 years of age at the time of offense, was entitled to the common law presumption of incapacity to commit a crime.

Under the common law, there is a rebuttable presumption that an infant between the ages of seven and fourteen is incapable of committing a crime, the presumption being that the incapacity decreases with the progress of his years after the age of seven. Clay v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462. Despite the fact that the courts have with consistency recognized the civil character of juvenile proceedings, nonetheless, it is now well established that in delinquency proceedings based upon a charge of violation of criminal law (which if proved could lead to loss of liberty) criminal due process standards apply at the adjudicatory stage of the proceedings the same as though the juvenile were standing trial in the criminal court on the alleged offense. In re Winship, 1970, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368; In re Application of Gault, 1967, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527; In Interest of J.D.D., Jr. v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 268 So. 2d 457. We conclude that since appellant would have been entitled to such presumption of incapacity had the case been tried in the criminal court, he was entitled to the benefit of it in the juvenile court.

In this case, appellant picked up his father’s shotgun from under the kitchen table where it was normally kept, walked to the front porch of his home and there fatally shot his playmate. The evidence established without contradiction that the gun was normally kept unloaded, that appellant’s younger brother had found a shell and loaded the gun two weeks before and then had forgotten to unload the gun or tell anybody about it, and that appellant thought the gun was unloaded when he pulled the trigger. There was no evidence *240showing any motive for the shooting, nor any evidence relating to appellant’s capacity to commit the offense other than a report of the court appointed psychologist which found appellant to be a mentally and academically retarded child. Appellant having been entitled to the presumption of lack of capacity, and the State having failed to offer any evidence which would reasonably tend to overcome such presumption, the appellant was entitled to an order finding nondelinquency and dismissal of the case.

Reversed.

WALDEN, J., and GONZALEZ, Jr., JOSE A., Associate Judge, concur.
#### MARYLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Claude R. KIRK, Governor of the State of Florida, suing for the use and benefit of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Appellee.

No. 70-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Otis Farrington, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 20.1

                         ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC.

                 NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST

      The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of The Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc., as Servicer ("NMG"), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated as of March 1, 1995 (as may be amended and supplemented from
time to time, the "Agreement"), among Neiman Marcus Funding Corporation, as
Seller, NMG as Servicer, and The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., as Trustee, does
hereby certify that:

      1.    NMG is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement. 
Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as
set forth in the Agreement.

      2.    The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized
pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
Trustee.

      3.    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the fiscal year
ended August 2, 1997,  and of its performance under the Agreement was
conducted under my supervision.

      4.    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my
knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such
obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5
below.

      5.    The following is a description of each default in the performance
of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to
me to have been made by the Servicer during the fiscal year ended August 2,
1997, which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such default, (ii) the
action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such default and (iii)
the current status of each such default: NONE.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
this 2nd day of December, 1997.

                                 THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC.
                                       as Servicer,

                                 By: /s/ Paul F. Gibbons
                                       Paul F. Gibbons 
                                       Vice President and Treasurer

                                          <PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,900
<PP&E>                                           3,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                     452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,837
<BONDS>                                         18,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,849)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,207
<SALES>                                          7,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,568
<CGS>                                            4,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,046)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,046)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.84)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23





November 13, 1997


Mr. Roger N. Stivers
Temtex Industries, Inc.
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1375
Dallas, Texas 75240

Dear Mr. Stivers:

This letter is to acknowledge that Temtex Industries, Inc. has
breached paragraph 7.5 of its Business Loan Agreement dated May 1,
1996, between the Borrower and Bank of America Texas, N.A..
Paragraph 7.5 of the Business Loan Agreement mandates the Borrower
maintain a positive net income for each fiscal year end.  Temtex
Industries was unable to perform under this covenant for the fiscal
year ended August 31, 1997.

The Bank waives compliance with the breached covenant through
August 31, 1997 predicated on the receipt by the Bank of a
$1,000.00 waiver fee indicated in paragraph 2.2 of the Business
Loan Agreement.

This waiver applies only to the breached covenant.  This waiver
does not apply to any other breach that may now exist or may occur
after the date of this waiver with respect to the breached covenant
or any other term, condition, or covenant of the Agreement.  All
other term, condition, or covenant of the Agreement.  All other
terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.



Sincerely,




Donald P. Hellman
Vice President