alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


            LETTER TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                       ENSTAR INCOME PROGRAM II-1, L.P.
                           12405 Powerscourt Drive
                          St. Louis, Missouri 63131







                                March 29, 2002




Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        Pursuant to temporary note 3T, Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. has
obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen stating that the
December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their quality control system for the
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit,
and availability of national office consultation.  Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen was not relevant to the audit.


                                Very truly yours,

                                ENSTAR COMMUNICATIONS
                                  CORPORATION, General Partner of
                                  Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P.



                                By: /s/   Paul E. Martin
                                  --------------------------------
                                   Name:  Paul E. Martin
                                   Title: Vice President and Corporate
                                          Controller (Principal Financial
                                          Officer and Principal Accounting
                                          Officer)
#### Gerard V. Cafaro, Respondent, v Ralph E. Squitieri et al., Appellants.

[736 NYS2d 251]

In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated March 15, 2001, which granted the motion, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered April 25, 2001, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $96,740.36.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order dated March 15, 2001, is vacated, the motion is denied, the action is reinstated, and the moving and answering papers are deemed to be the complaint and the answer, respectively; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order *473are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether failure of consideration constitutes a valid defense to the promissory note (see, *Tibball v Catalanotto,*269 AD2d 386; *Goodman, Rakower & Agiato v Lieberman,*226 AD2d 343; *Eurotech Dev. v Adirondack Pennysaver,*224 AD2d 738, 739). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint should have been denied *(cf., MDJR Enters. v LaTorre,*268 AD2d 509). Altman, J.P., O’Brien, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Herbert EDWARDS v. Josie M. GIAMBRONE et al.

No. 61489.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Josie M. Giambrone, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Iberville. 353 So.2d 326.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,130
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,386
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,081
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,515
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,498
<LOANS>                                         94,488
<ALLOWANCE>                                        629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,067
<DEPOSITS>                                      75,881
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,700
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,979
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 132,067
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,970
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  477
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    16
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,463
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 859
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,111
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,352
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       21
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (26)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    219
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.53
<LOANS-NON>                                        731
<LOANS-PAST>                                       268
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,582
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   608
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  629
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7010** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
CALVIN LEONARD WORTHEN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00010

- MR

- 6 )

Submitted : September 11 , 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Calvin Leonard Worthen, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Leonard Worthen 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 b y the district court. United
States v. Worthen , 1:08

- cr - 00010

- MR

- 6 (W.D.N.C. June 6, 2012)
. We deny Worthen’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mater ials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 16, 2021 No. 04-21-00021-CV Nancy ALANIS , Appellant
v. U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , as successor trustee to Bank of America, National Association, as successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank, M.A., as trustee for the MLMI Trust Series

2006-He6, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper,

Appellees From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-01238 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed. Appellant’s brief is due no later than July 19, 2021
.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

November 5, 2013

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 12‐1212

ACUTE CARE SPECIALISTS, II, et al,

Plaintiffs‐Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:11‐cv‐00465

Matthew F. Kennelly,

Judge.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, filed on October 7, 2013,

no judge in active service has requested a vote, and all of the judges on the original

panel have voted to DENY the petition for rehearing.  

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED:

The slip opinion of this court issued on August 22, 2013, is amended as follows:

page 6, line 6, “agreed” should be “agree”.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1056

To require that defense reinvestment and economic growth funds be allocated

among communities on the basis of the relative levels of reductions

in employment experienced in such communities as a result of reduced

spending for national defense functions.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 27 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. HOLLINGS, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To require that defense reinvestment and economic growth

funds be allocated among communities on the basis of

the relative levels of reductions in employment experienced in such communities as a result of reduced spending for national defense functions.

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

3 SECTION 1. ALLOCATION OF DEFENSE CONVERSION FUNDS

4 ON THE BASIS OF JOB LOSSES.

5 (a) ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT.—(1) Notwithstand6 ing any other provision of law, funds available for provid7 ing assistance under a program referred to in subsection
2

•S 1056 IS

1 (b) to or in communities adversely affected by conditions

2 described in paragraph (2) shall be allocated among such

3 communities on the basis of the relative levels of reduc4 tions in employment experienced in such communities as

5 a result of such conditions. On that basis, communities

6 experiencing higher levels of such reductions in employ7 ment than are experienced by other communities shall be

8 allocated a commensurately higher level of funding than

9 is allocated to such other communities.

10 (2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are

11 as follows:

12 (A) A significant reduction in Federal spending

13 levels for national defense functions.

14 (B) A significant reduction in the size of the

15 Armed Forces of the United States.

16 (C) A base closure or realignment by the De17 partment of Defense.

18 (b) PROGRAMS COVERED.—This section applies to

19 each Federal program providing any of the following as20 sistance:

21 (1) Job training assistance or other employ22 ment adjustment assistance.

23 (2) Economic planning, development, or conver24 sion assistance.
3

•S 1056 IS

1 (3) Assistance for developing and applying new

2 technologies for nondefense commercial purposes.

3 (c) ALLOCATION RESPONSIBILITIES.—The head of

4 the department or agency of the Federal Government re5 sponsible for the administration of a program described

6 in subsection (b) shall develop for, and apply in, the ad7 ministration of such program an allocation formula that

8 meets the requirements of this section.

Æ
Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303) 844

- 3157

April 15, 2010 Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Cle rk

Mr. Mark Andrew Christensen

FCI

- Victorville Medium II

P.O. Box 5300

Adelanto, CA 92301

#09220

- 046

RE: 09

- 8040, 09

- 8054, Christensen v. Big Horn County Board of Count, et al

Dist/Ag docket: 2:08

- CV

- 00112

- ABJ

Dear Appellant :

Enclosed is a cop y of the order and judgment.

Please contact this office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of the Court

cc: Joseph H. Azbell

Steven K. Sharpe

Kathleen Swanson

EAS/lab
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 20, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 6, 2006 |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy                      
|                        |  | Sean M. McCarthy                          
|                        |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich
Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Gerald SWINDLE v. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38751.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
#### James HOURIHAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ben GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-23.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 31, 1971.

W. C. Airth, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 35668)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAMS Peer Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         August 8, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Health/NIAMS, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kathy Salaita, SCD, Chief, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 3172, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-8250,                         *salaitak@csr.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 23, 2018.

Sylvia L. Neal,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-16060 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Cutter & Buck Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the third quarter of fiscal year 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on March 9, 2007 (“the Report”), I, Michael Gats,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, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respectsthe financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|        |   | /s/  Michael Gats                   |   |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | Michael Gats                                  |   |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                       |   |   |
|   |   | (Principal Financial and  Accounting Officer) |   |   |

 

----
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1342 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit expensing of certain 

depreciable business assets for small businesses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2013 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 

expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small 

businesses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Invest5 ment Promotion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS AS7 SETS FOR SMALL BUSINESS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1342 IS

1 (1) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) of 

2 section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

3 is amended by striking ‘‘shall not exceed—’’ and all 

4 that follows and inserting ‘‘shall not exceed 

5 $250,000.’’. 

6 (2) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Paragraph 

7 (2) of section 179(b) of such Code is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘exceeds—’’ and all that follows and insert9 ing ‘‘exceeds $800,000.’’. 

10 (b) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Clause (ii) of section 

11 179(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and 

12 before 2014’’. 

13 (c) ELECTION.—Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of 

14 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘may not be revoked’’ 

15 and all that follows through ‘‘and before 2014’’. 

16 (d) QUALIFIED REAL PROPERTY.—Section 179(f) of 

17 such Code is amended— 

18 (1) by striking ‘‘beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, 

19 or 2013’’ in paragraph (1), and 

20 (2) by striking paragraph (4). 

21 (e) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Subsection (b) of sec22 tion 179 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

23 the following new paragraph: 

24 ‘‘(6) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1342 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

2 taxable year beginning after 2014, the dollar 

3 amounts in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall each 

4 be increased by an amount equal to— 

5 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

6 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de7 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal8 endar year in which the taxable year be9 gins, by substituting ‘2013’ for ‘1992’ in 

10 subparagraph (B) thereof. 

11 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—The amount of any in12 crease under subparagraph (A) shall be round13 ed to the nearest multiple of $10,000.’’. 

14 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
252 La. 169

#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS v. William S. BOYD.

No. 49260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: William S. Boyd applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs denied. The showing made in the application is insufficient to warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
#### EXCEL BARONNE DISCOUNT, INC. v. Bernice MONTANA.

No. 5544.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 5, 1973.

Sidney A. Cotlar, Herman & Herman, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Patrick M. Reily, Polack, Rosenberg & Rittenberg, New Orleans, for Orleans Parish School Board' — Garnishee.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

An employer garnished under fi. fa. appeals from a judgment condemning it for payments under R.S. 13:3881(1) as worded when garnishment occurred, rather than after amendment by La.Acts 1970, No. 242.

Pending this appeal, Hooter v. Wilson, La., 273 So.2d 516 (1972), held the amendment applicable to existing garnishments.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the judgment creditor’s rule is dismissed at its cost.