alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00985-CR

TRACY LYNN SIMS JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-71267-H

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles E. HEBERT.

No. 61389.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Charles E. Hebert applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. De Soto Parish.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable John S. Pickett, Judge of the 11th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of DeSoto, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 3rd day of March, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator — should not be granted.
No. 00-6402.

#### Weaver *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 28, 2016

a0620

Order 

Clerk

June 28, 2016

151290(36)(39)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151290

COA: 325503

Jackson CC: 82-029906-FC 

MICHAEL DARNELL HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 29, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. The motion for clarity on MCR 6.502(G)(1) is DENIED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134689 & (35) (36) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134689 COA: 275273 Jackson CC: 03-000983-FH RICHARD JEFFREY KINT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 18, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.

s1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                      18,792,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,715,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                   333,861
<INVENTORY>                                  1,230,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,708,862
<PP&E>                                     223,726,769
<DEPRECIATION>                            (61,323,754)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             217,347,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,041,095
<BONDS>                                    206,920,948
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       21,933,351
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,128
<OTHER-SE>                                (39,465,523)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               217,347,473
<SALES>                                     12,715,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           113,898,456
<CGS>                                        6,302,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               89,264,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,744,120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               203,734
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,615,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                739,986
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            739,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   739,986
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
#### Judson DAVIES v. STATE.

No. 36192.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          9
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

 <S>                                        <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
  <PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
  <CASH>                                         10,356
  <INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          1,431
  <FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
  <TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
  <INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    44,442
  <INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         14,568
  <INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           14,333
  <LOANS>                                       172,725
  <ALLOWANCE>                                     2,177
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                248,223
  <DEPOSITS>                                    205,745
  <SHORT-TERM>                                   10,592
  <LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,338
  <LONG-TERM>                                     9,000
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
  <PREFERRED>                                         0
  <COMMON>                                        1,805
  <OTHER-SE>                                     19,743
  <TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                248,223
  <INTEREST-LOAN>                                10,261
  <INTEREST-INVEST>                               2,606
  <INTEREST-OTHER>                                  140
  <INTEREST-TOTAL>                               13,007
  <INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              5,659
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              6,351
  <INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           6,656
  <LOAN-LOSSES>                                     255
  <SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
  <EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 4,270
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,139
  <INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      3,139
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
  <CHANGES>                                           0
  <NET-INCOME>                                    2,116
  <EPS-BASIC>                                    2.40
  <EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.40
  <YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.25
  <LOANS-NON>                                     1,018
  <LOANS-PAST>                                        0
  <LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
  <LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 1,504
  <ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,947
  <CHARGE-OFFS>                                     114
  <RECOVERIES>                                       89
  <ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,177
  <ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,177
  <ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
  <ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.9

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

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Barrick Gold Corporation (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012 (the Report).

I, Ammar Al-Joundi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: March 28, 2013



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ammar Al-Joundi                                        
|Name: Ammar Al-Joundi                                      
|Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
Net earnings (loss) per share is calculated as follows:
(in thousands, except per share data)                           THREE MONTHS ENDED                    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                   SEPTEMBER 30,                        SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                         ----------------------------------   -----------------------------------
                                                              2001              2000               2001               2000
                                                         ---------------   ----------------   ----------------  -----------------
<S>                                                      <C>               <C>                <C>               <C>
                                                          $         534      $      (2,029)     $      (3,408)    $       (7,255)
Net income (loss)
                                                         ===============   ================   ================  =================

BASIC:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding                   10,625             10,357             10,543             10,214
                                                         ===============   ================   ================  =================

    Net earnings (loss) per common share                  $        0.05      $       (0.20)     $       (0.32)    $        (0.71)
                                                         ===============   ================   ================  =================

DILUTED:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding                   10,625             10,357             10,543             10,214
    Effect of dilutive securities:
        Convertible notes                                             -                  -                  -                  -
        Stock options                                               218                  -                  -                  -
        Warrants                                                      9                  -                  -                  -
                                                         ---------------   ----------------   ----------------  -----------------
    Weighted average common and common
        equivalent shares outstanding                            10,852             10,357             10,543             10,214
                                                         ===============   ================   ================  =================

    Net earnings (loss) per common and common
        equivalent share                                  $        0.05      $       (0.20)     $       (0.32)    $        (0.71)
                                                         ===============   ================   ================  =================

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35512-35513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16035]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  83 FR 35041, July 
24, 2018.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Thursday, July 26, 
2018 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The following matter will also be considered 
during the 2 p.m. Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 26, 2018:

Formal order of investigation

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact the

[[Page 35513]]

Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 23, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16035 Filed 7-24-18; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
= AP

Oar

rr

:

Pa
ve

Bec

nae

eeshctas

Aas?

<2 . : Pe f
ede AMM: Ra
‘

¥e ; ees
, ‘ 2 was

Wate?

aps0 es ie
P —iyeey Sey j Te
19 SWS ee eee eee

see

ALM
ee
yy
ar | ath pats

oy

eo Piet)

| Y

g 2 Drrught bar ruvrae a. a 10g /03\ 13; sh bbe, 8 M7)

ee,

4%
+
H
4

i
eS. AM a
‘ +

a ee es eres yt more lh caer an
at ; =: edcar Vee

Lae!
ce nen re

Mb. fe ty even’ |
! g: Menda diterlat i oe
a ae parish Mary Fh,
: : : ret MN att hes C umren. ae
PO Monn Yohkn

| Mbakeney Mirhact.
_Warkle Hevea h .,

2. « eelok a

~

;
i
i
t
é

rs

"ye
©

wi. 4

~
as
re

; Aung 7. / 4

: Me Se ates ih
; oa Curlin Ms Cyan.

3 2, artin Mocahasl. 4,
3 Me CZRNA mn: SA" i wens ag ~

oa Mealectt « Vern al.
es Mar dew Kawne.
~t% PPE: POAT
PME fur atl.
 pMbwane US &
Maurkhy Muckacl.
a - ee he enten Eh
3 ris | halal Cher ee
: a / Vie bey, Areal.

i
iJ

a __eitehete Mowe jb.
ema Me atthe.

tole NS ee A LOE >
-: . . » = 4

ae

"f

Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.
Exhibit 4.2



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated October 7, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2130 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-266213) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 7, 2022
#### Evelyn KOWEL, Appellant, v. Alex KOWEL, Appellee.

No. 70-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 3, 1970.

Pozen, Gold & Gold, Miami, for appellant.

Seaman & Wolf, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is the former wife of the appellee. She appeals a post-judgment order in which the trial judge did the following: (1) entered judgment against the appellee for the amount of the past due child support payments; (2) declined to use the equitable powers of the court to collect the arrearages; (3) entered judgment for the appellee reducing the amount of future child support payments.

Appellant’s principal contention is that the court committed error in denying appellant's motion to require appellee to produce specified stock certificates as a preface to levying upon them the anticipated judgment for arrearages in child support. Appellant had a right to the judgment. Boyle v. Boyle, Fla.App.1964, 164 *509So.2d 566. But the use of the extraordinary powers of a court of equity to enforce the payment of support arrearages is a matter within the sound judicial of discretion of the trial judge. Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 456; Boyle v. Boyle, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 566; Olsen v. Olsen, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 276, 277; Levison v. Levison, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 630. The circumstances of this case do not show a clear abuse of discretion. The order is affirmed as to this holding.

Appellant’s remaining points claim error upon that portion of the order which reduced the amount of the monthly payment for child support. It is pointed out that the appellee’s motion for modification of the support provisions of the judgment of divorce was formally and voluntarily withdrawn prior to the entry of the order appealed. We believe that this fact was not called to the trial judge’s attention. We must therefore reverse that portion of the order appealed upon authority of the rule stated in: Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 334; Parrish v. Parrish, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 715; Ray v. Ray, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 721.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
From: Kenneth Winder [mailto:kwinder@mleainc.com]

Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:44 AM

To: Robert Berman

Cc: Parker Richard; Corkran, Jerry L; Bolduc Christop her; Anderson Richard; Ballo Timothy; Beck Scott R.; Caskey John. F; Cymbalsky John; adelaski@standar dsasap.org Delaski; Tom; Fernstrom Gary; Gaytan
Carlos; Greeson Robert; bruce.r.hirs ch@bge.com Hirsch R; Hodge Gerald R.; Hyland Michael J.; Millure David; Nadel Steven; Patterson Wesley F.; Petersen Eric; Polinski Raymond; artrosenfeld@gmail.com Rosenfeld; Rosenstock Steven J.; Roy Robin; Sain t Robert; Simmons Charles E.; Cohen Dan; Coulter Greg; Creevy Jim; ahofmann@publicpower.org Hofma nn; Kumar Puesh; Mauer Joanna; Aaron Meyers; jrossetti@mlgw.org Rossetti; Ryan Paul; Schoen Je rry W.; bsmith@federalpacific.com Smith; Waltner Meg; Brian Coffey; Coughlin Katie; brenda.edwards @ee.doe.gov Edwards; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov Freeman; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei Luo; emily.marchett i@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; Rosenquist Gregory; Drexler Charles R.; Phil Hopkinson; James.Lass@cle co.com Lass; Sampat Mahesh P.; DYoung@energysolution.com Young; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-e lectric.com Kennedy; eduardorobles@eaton.com Robles; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.co m Tendulkar; thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com Patzner; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com Siquieros; Raba Jim Subject: Re: Cost of Capital to Electric Utilities

Richard and Colleagues: I have a person getting some current information about cost of borrowing for Cooperatives, and I will forward that to everyone as it becomes available. It is far above the 3% Mr. Berman uses. Some money may come from RUS (Feder al Government loan), but that usually only represents about 60 to 70% of the loan package. The over 30 or 40% must come from other sources such as commercial banks, or Coope rative entities such as CoBank and Cooperative Finance Corporation. As a blended cost of borrowing, it is far different than 3%. RUS loaned money had higher rates than th at 35 years ago. They do have a distressedCooperative loan possibility that may be in the 3% range, but I have never heard of anyone qualifying for it.

Ken

On 11/7/2011 3:46 AM, Robe rt Berman wrote: Richard and All,

For those interested in the curren t cost of money to investor owne d electric utilities, the weighted average cost of capital a ppears to be a little over 5%. This is composed of about 7% equity and

4% debt. See attached for full li st of sector costs. As noted in my earlier email to Ken, rural electric coops and municipals typically borrow fr om RUS at rates pegged to long-term treasuries -- currently about 3%. Links also included her for convenience.

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UEP_Rates.html

and http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UEP_Loans_Grants.html

Regards,Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court Vienna, VA 22182

703-281-0490 703-655-8398 (cell) BermanEconomics@gmail.com
254 La. 134

#### Vivian C. BARKER et vir, Emma B. Hicks et vir v. The PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 49824.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1969.

In re: West-Clark Motors, Inc., and the Phoenix Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Webster. 220 So.2d 720; 220 So.2d 726.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.