alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
County Auditor's Fonn/9999A 

Han'is County. Texas (Rev 04/01) 

Action ----- PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT -----

Style PLT. M ONTGOMERY, MELBAJO 

DEF MONTGOMERY, LEO BRIAN 

Fee 

11 9 

Descnption 

TRANSCRIPT 

Comment: 

Official Receipt 

CHRIS DANIEL DISTRICT CLERK 

Case : 201334055 -7 Trans ID 208245 587 

Amount Payment Check 1989 

$310.00 Amount Tendered . 

Payment Amount: 

Amount Applied 

Change Amount: 

Received 

Of 

OWOR GOGOU K 

6475 HILLCROFT AVE, SUITE B 

HOUSTON, TX 77081 

50 NO. I-t658 

Court. 310 

240 26105 

$310 00 

$310 00 

$310 00 

$310 00 

$000 

THREE HUNDRED TEN AND 00/100 .. • .... ••••••• .. ••••• .. • .. · Dollars 

Payment Date· 4/10/201 5 File Date 

Assessed By: LOPEZ, CRYSTAL 

Validated 4/10/2015 By .LOPEZ, CRYSTAL 

CUSTOlVIER COPY
EX-10.23



 EXHIBIT 10.23 

NVR, Inc. 
 Summary of
the 2014 Named Executive Officer Annual Incentive Compensation Plan 
 The following is a description of NVR, Inc.’s
(“NVR” or the “Company”) 2014 annual incentive compensation plan (the “Bonus Plan”). The Bonus Plan is not set forth in a formal written document, and therefore NVR is providing this description of the plan pursuant to
Item 601(b)(10)(iii) of Regulation S-K. All of NVR’s named executive officers; Paul C. Saville (President and Chief Executive Officer of NVR), Daniel D. Malzahn (Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of NVR), Eugene J.
Bredow (Vice President and Controller of NVR) and Robert W. Henley (President of NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc.), participate in the Bonus Plan. 

Under the Bonus Plan, the named executive officers’ bonus opportunity is capped at 100% of their base salary. As a result of the capped
feature of the bonus plan, achievement of results which exceed the business plan will not result in the payment of a bonus exceeding 100% of base salary. The named executive officers’ annual bonus opportunity will be based 80% upon the
Company’s consolidated pre-tax profit (before consolidated annual bonus and stock-based compensation expense but after all other charges) and 20% based on the number of new orders, net of cancellations (“New Orders”) that we generate
compared to the consolidated pre-tax profit and New Orders within the Company’s 2014 annual business plan. The named executive officers begin to earn the consolidated pre-tax profit portion of their annual bonus award once the annual business
plan is at least 80% attained. The full amount of the consolidated pre-tax profit portion of their annual bonus award is earned ratably from 80% up to 100% achievement of the annual business plan. The named executive officers begin to earn the New
Orders unit portion of their annual bonus award once the annual business plan is at least 85% attained. The full amount of the New Orders unit portion of their annual bonus award is earned ratably from 85% up to 100% achievement of the annual
business plan. Mr. Henley’s bonus is subject to a pro-rata reduction, limited to a maximum of 20%, based on the internal audit results of the operations under his direct management.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of The Singing Machine Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
Barocas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: January 19, 2005              /s/ Jeffrey Barocas
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Jeffrey Barocas
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Gus DUNCOMB, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-586.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1972.

Gus Duncomb, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Ayala, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered on December 14, 1989, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *3V%*to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of AngioSoma Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alex Blankenship, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: September 13, 2016BY: /s/ Alex BlankenshipAlex BlankenshipChief Executive Officer, President, Secretary, Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Finance and Accounting Officer and Sole Director  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Bates, Appellant, *v.*Hill et al., Appellees.

(No. 30581

Decided January 30, 1946.)

*Mr. Wesley C. Bates, in propria persona.*

*- Mr. John P. Kelso*and *Mr. Harley Meyer,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Bell, J., not participating.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOGINDER SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73757

Agency No. A076-858-121

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Joginder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

DEC 10 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d

1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we deny the petition for review.

Singh testified that, during both of his arrests, police questioned him about

two recent crimes and Singh’s involvement in them. Substantial evidence supports

the agency’s finding that, even if credible, Singh failed to establish past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected

ground. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2004) (record

supported the agency’s finding that police were pursuing legitimate goal of finding

evidence of crime). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See id. at 1045.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if

returned to India. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 11-73757
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                         5,667,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,593,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (395,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,235,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,007,000
<PP&E>                                         2,792,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,989,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,959,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,595,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,344,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,959,000
<SALES>                                        4,466,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,466,000
<CGS>                                          2,027,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,405,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               34,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             43,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                77,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   77,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.01
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.02**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-114141,333-99057 and 333-62762) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-123685, 333-116030, 333-105522,333-99061 and 333-63995) of Intrado, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2005,except as to Note 5 and Note 13 which are as of March 3, 2006, relating to theconsolidated financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado

March 3, 2006

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MALACHI BRITTINGHAM

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellee. § § § No. 127, 2020 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No s

. 1901009608, § 1902011833, 1902017523 (N) § §

Submitted: April 30, 2020

Decided: May 4, 2020

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, J ustices.

ORDER

H aving considered the notice to show cause and the response
, it appears to the

Court that :

(1) On March 27, 2020 , the appellant, Malachi Brittingham , filed a notice

of appeal from a Superior Court order refusing to consider his pro se motion to

dismiss pending criminal charges because he was re presented by counsel

. 1 The

Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Brittingham to show cause why this

appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider a

1 Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47, the Superior Court “ will not consider pro se applications by defendants who are represented by counsel unless the defendant has been granted permission to participate with counsel in the defense. ”2

criminal interlocutory appeal

. In his response to the notice to show cause,

Brittingham argues that review of his interlocutory appeal would serve a beneficial

purpose

.

(2) This Court may only review a final judgment in a criminal case. 2 The

Superior Court o rder refusing to consider Brittingham’s pro se motion to dismiss is

not a final order. 3 This appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29 ( b ),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ K aren L

. V alihura

Justice

2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). See also Gottlieb v. State , 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 1997) (holding

this Court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory order s in criminal case s ).

3 Cf. Brunhammer v. State , 2016 WL 611822, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2016) (dismissing appeal from Superior Court order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment)

.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4094

To require that a study be conducted with respect to the medical benefits

and services that are available to individuals by virtue of being Members

of Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1994

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To require that a study be conducted with respect to the

medical benefits and services that are available to individuals by virtue of being Members of Congress.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY.

4 The General Accounting Office shall conduct a study,

5 the purpose of which shall be to review and evaluate the

6 medical benefits and services that are available to individ7 uals by virtue of being Members of Congress.
2

•HR 4094 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONTENT.

2 The benefits and services studied under this Act shall

3 include—

4 (1) ambulance services on Capitol Hill;

5 (2) benefits and services available through the

6 Office of the Attending Physician;

7 (3) use of military hospitals and outpatient clin8 ics; and

9 (4) any other medical benefits or services pro10 vided to Members of Congress solely on the basis of

11 their status as a Member of Congress.

12 SEC. 3. REPORT.

13 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact14 ment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall sub15 mit to Congress a written report setting forth the findings

16 and conclusions of its study.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

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 annual report of JA Energy
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended May 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Hall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: June 28, 2016







/s/ Barry Hall

Barry Hall,

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41126 

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIPE CANTU-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-30

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe

Cantu-Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Cantu-Flores has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

,

v.

VICTOR MANUEL GALLEGOS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00272

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20120C00942 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until

July 21

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

APPEELLEE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Charles L. Roberts , the Appellee ’s Attorney, prepare

the Appellee ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 21 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of June , 201 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, CJ , Rodriguez, and Hughes , JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.6

                       FORM OF CONSENT OF CHASE SECURITIES INC.

                                                                         [Date]



Special Committee of the Board of Directors
PepsiAmericas, Inc.
3800 Dain Rauscher Plaza
66 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Members of the Special Committee:

     We hereby consent to the use of our opinion letter dated August 18, 2000 to
the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of PepsiAmericas, Inc.
("PepsiAmericas") included as Annex D to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus
which forms part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of Whitman
Corporation ("Whitman") relating to the proposed business combination involving
PepsiAmericas and Whitman, and to the references therein to such opinion in the
section entitled "Summary--Opinions of Financial Advisors," "The
Merger--Recommendation of the PepsiAmericas Board and PepsiAmericas' Reasons
for the Merger" and "The Merger--Opinion of PepsiAmericas Special Committee's
Financial Advisor."

     In giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of
persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act"), or the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, nor do we thereby admit that we
are experts with respect to any part of such Registration Statement within the
meaning of the term "experts" as used in the Securities Act or the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder.


                              CHASE SECURITIES INC.



                              By: ___________________________________
                                  Name:
                                  Title:
#### Mark Mallamo, Appellant, v Getty Petroleum Corp., Sued Herein as Power Test, et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on June 15, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted the *165motion by defendant Getty Petroleum Corp., sued herein as Power Test ("Getty”), pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Getty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence and breach of warranty action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries he sustained as the result of an automobile accident on the Hutchinson River Parkway, White Plains, New York, on August 18, 1986, when the left rear wheel of the plaintiff’s automobile fell off the vehicle. Plaintiff alleged in his verified complaint that the lessees of a Power Test gasoline station located at 200 Westchester Avenue, Port Chester, New York, defendants Cassese Automotive, Inc. ("Cassese”) and its principal shareholder, Frank Cassese, performed negligent repair work on the plaintiff’s automobile a month prior to the accident and that the lessees were acting on behalf of defendant Getty, as landlord of that Power Test station.

Plaintiff failed to present any evidentiary facts showing that Getty exercised any control or supervision over the performance of the repair work on the plaintiff’s automobile *(Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065, 1067). In the absence of such a factual showing, plaintiff’s principal-agency and vicarious liability theories of recovery as against defendant Getty are insufficient, as a matter of law, to defeat Getty’s motion for summary judgment *(Indig v Finkelstein,*23 NY2d 728). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.