alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 23, 2012

Analyst Contact:
Andrew Ziola918-588-7163Media Contact:
Brad Borror918-588-7582
 ONEOK and ONEOK Partners to Participate in
 U.S. Capital Advisors Midstream Corporate Access Day
  TULSA, Okla. –Jan. 23, 2012 – ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the U.S. Capital Advisors Midstream Corporate Access Day in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012.
  Terry K. Spencer, president of ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, will conduct a series of meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.
  The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK and ONEOK Partners websites, www.oneok.com and www.oneokpartners.com, that morning, beginning at 7 a.m. Central Standard Time.
 
 ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company. We are the general partner and own 42.8 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. Our energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S. ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 Stock Index.
  ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 42.8 percent of the overall partnership interest. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.
  For more information, visit the websites at www.oneok.com or www.oneokpartners.com.
  For the latest news about ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter@ONEOKNewsand@ONEOKPartners.
  ###
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40918

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONNA PORTER HEDRICK,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CR-11-5

- - - - - - - - - -

May 25, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donna Porter Hedrick appeals from her conviction of conspiracy

to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Hedrick argues

that her plea was involuntary because she did not understand the

nature of duress as a defense to criminal liability; because she

pleaded guilty to obtain medical treatment; and because she was

mentally disabled. She contends that her duress defense rendered

the factual basis for her plea inadequate.

The Government argues that Hedrick waived her right to appeal.
No. 98-40918

-2-

The explanation of the waiver provision of the plea agreement

offered at Hedrick’s sentencing hearing, however, limited the

waiver to sentencing issues only. Although Hedrick raises no

sentencing issues in this appeal, the issues she raises are not

barred by the wavier provision.

Regarding Hedrick’s contentions, our de novo review of the

record of Hedrick’s plea hearing indicates that her plea was

knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Amaya, 111 F.3d 386,

388 (5th Cir. 1997). Our review of the record indicates that the

district court’s finding that there was a factual basis for

Hedrick’s guilty plea was not erroneous. United States v.

Schmalzried, 152 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Directors
Downey Financial Corp.:

We  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration   statement
(No.333-30483) on Form S-8 of Downey Financial Corp. of our report dated January
21, 2000, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Downey Financial Corp.
as of December 31, 1999 and 1998,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
income,  comprehensive  income,  stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears
in the December 31, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Downey Financial Corp.


                                    /s/  KPMG LLP
                                    -------------
Los Angeles, California
March 6, 2000
263 La. 364

#### W. C. BRADFORD et al. v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.

No. 52871.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: City of Shreveport applying- for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do. 266 So.2d 254.

Writ refused. The case having been remanded for further proceedings, the judgment is not final.
<PAGE>


                                                            Exhibit 23.1

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                           
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (333-01574), (333-12789) and (333-24581); on Form S-3 
(Nos. 333-10383) and (333-14025); and on Form S-4 (No. 333-13133) of U.S. 
Office Products Company of our report dated June 6, 1997, appearing on page 
F-1 which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 
of U.S. Office Products Company for the year ended April 26, 1997.  We also 
consent to the references to us under the headings "Experts" and "Selected 
Financial Data" in such Registration Statements. However, it should be noted 
that Price Waterhouse LLP has not prepared or certified such "Selected 
Financial Data."

/s/PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 30, 1997
### NUMBER S 13

- 10

- 00 2 09

- CV AND 13

- 10

- 2 10

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF V.L., K.L., AND J.L., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 3 19 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yanez, Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jacob D. Lopez , perfected appeal s from judgment s rendered against

him in favor of appellee, Yvonne Garza Lopez. On April 12, 2010

, in separate letter s , the
Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the c lerk's record in the above cause s w ere
originally due on March 19, 2010, and that the deputy district clerk, Arnold Garcia , had
notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's

record. The Clerk of this Court notif ied appellant of this defect so that steps could be

taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).2

Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date

of receipt of th is noti ce, the appeal s would be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court = s notice s . Accordingly, the appeal s

are DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 20th day of May , 20 10

.
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4284

___________

Jay A. Ochanpaugh; Caralee D. *

Ochanpaugh, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Penny Albright; Ida M. Jones, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2006

Filed: November 30, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jay and Caralee Ochanpaugh (plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s1

dismissal of their civil action and the court’s denial of their postjudgment motions to

strike, which were filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment. 

Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was untimely because it was not filed within sixty

days after the district court entered its judgment, as required under Federal Rule of
-2-

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B); plaintiffs did not move for an extension of time to

appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), see Fed. R. App. P.

26(b)(1) (court may not extend time to file notice of appeal except as authorized by

Rule 4); and none of plaintiffs’ postjudgment motions extended the time allowed to

file their notice of appeal because, even if the motions were construed as Rule 59

motions, they were untimely, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168-69 (8th

Cir. 1988) (time for appeal not tolled by untimely Rule 59 motion).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See United States

v. Stute Co., 402 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2005) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory

and jurisdictional).

______________________________
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 10.63


                 DESCRIPTION OF LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE BONUS PLAN

     In 1999, the Compensation Committee established a long-term performance
bonus plan to provide a long-term cash bonus opportunity to members of upper
management, including executive officers, at the conclusion of fiscal year 2001
if FedEx achieves certain earnings per share targets established by the
Compensation Committee with respect to the three-fiscal-year period 1999 through
2001. No bonuses were awarded in fiscal 2001 to upper management, including
executive officers, under the long-term plan due to below-plan performance for
the three-fiscal-year period.

     The Compensation Committee has established similar plans for the
three-fiscal-year periods 2000 through 2002, 2001 through 2003 and 2002 through
2004, providing bonus opportunities for 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively, if
certain earnings per share targets are achieved with respect to those periods.
No amounts can be earned for the 2000 through 2002, 2001 through 2003 and 2002
through 2004 plans until 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively, because achievement
of the earnings per share objectives can only be determined following the
conclusion of the applicable three-fiscal-year period.

     Under each plan, the average percentage of an individual's achievement of
individual objectives under FedEx's annual performance bonus plan for the
three-fiscal-year period of each of the long-term performance bonus plans will
be used as an individual performance measure when calculating individual
bonuses, except for Frederick W. Smith whose individual performance measure will
be determined by the Compensation Committee.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, L. Stephen Smith,Chief Executive Officer of The PMI Group, Inc. (“Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: March 15, 2011 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Charles R. HOLLEY and Natalie S. Holley, his wife, Petitioners, v. Mac S. HAINES, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 39808.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 29, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 152.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS ARNOLD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00046-RJC-DSC-2)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Arnold appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Arnold, No. 3:05-cr-00046-RJC-DSC-2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 

2011). 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.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 7, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00232

- CV

IN RE ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

The court’s opinion in this mandamus action issued September 26, 2018 . Thus, any

motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration was due October 11, 2018. On the

due date, real part y in interest, S.A. Villas, filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to

file a motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration, asking for an additional

twenty days in which to file such motions. After review, we grante d the motion and o rdered the

real part y in interest to file its motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration, if

any , on or before October 31, 2018. Then on November 1, 2018, the real part y in interest filed a

second motion for extension of time to file a mo tion for rehearing and motion for en banc

reconsideration, asking for an additional five days in which to file its motions. This time, the

motion was opposed. The motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration were

filed in this court on Nov ember 5, 2018. Accordingly, a fter review we GRANT the motion for

extension of time and ORDER the motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration

deemed filed.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel.

It is so ORDERED on this 7th day of November, 2018

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CI22084 , styled S.A. Villas, LP v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance

Company, Crawford & Company, and Danny Brown , pending in the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County,

Texas, the Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker presiding.
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Harry BARNETT et al., Respondents.

No. 40414.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 210.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,899
<INVENTORY>                                     46,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,551
<PP&E>                                          69,887
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,567
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,640
<SALES>                                        156,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,879
<CGS>                                          135,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,175)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (75,484)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (40,804)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 13,239
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (103,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.13)


</TABLE>
FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES)

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding,

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being filed.

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission

Room H-113

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Howard Wilkins III

 cwilkins@rmmenvirolaw.com

L. Elizabeth Sarine

 esarine@rmmenvirolaw.com

Remy Moose Manley, LLP

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone Number: 916-443-2745

Fax Number: 916-443-9017

ECM BioFilms, Inc. et al. 2/27/2015

Mark Murray

Californians Against Waste

921 11th Street, Suite 420

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone Number: 916-443-5422

Fax Number: 916-443-3912

D09358 (Howard F. Wilkins III)

02 27 2015
EXHIBIT 10.14b



AMENDMENT NO. 2

Effective November 16, 2010

TO THE PMI GROUP, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN

(Amended and Restated as of September 1, 2007)



THE PMI GROUP, INC., having adopted The PMI Group, Inc. Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan (the
Plan) effective as of April 1, 1995, and amended and restated the Plan in its entirety effective as of September 1, 2007, and having further amended the restated Plan as of November 20, 2008, hereby amends the restated
Plan as follows:



1. The phrase or as soon
as administratively practicable thereafter is deleted from each place that it appears in the Plan.



2. The second sentence of Section 4.1 is deleted and the following sentence is substituted therefore:



Notwithstanding any contrary Plan
provision, such payment shall be made on the first day of the calendar month that immediately follows the Participants Separation from Service (the Designated Payment Date) and any such payment shall be treated as made on the
Designated Payment Date if such payment is made either on that date, or a later date that is no later than (i) the end of the Participants taxable year that includes the Designated Payment Date, or (ii) if later, the fifteenth
(15th) calendar day of the third calendar month
immediately following the Designated Payment Date.



3. This Amendment No. 2 to the restated Plan is effective as of November 16, 2010.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The PMI Group, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment No. 2 to the restated Plan as of
the date specified below.



|                        |  |  |  |                     |  |                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | THE PMI GROUP, INC.
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 18, 2010 |  |  |  | By:                 |  | /s/ Charles F. Broom                  
|                        |  |  |  |                     |  | Charles Broom                         
|                        |  |  |  |                     |  | Senior Vice President, Human Resources