alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON****, DC 20549**

** **

**Form10-K**

(Mark One)

[X]   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

** **

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

** **

or

** **

[ ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934

** **

For thetransition period from _________to _________

** **

Commission file number0-18541

** **

**NATIONAL TAX CREDITPARTNERS, L.P.**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

** **

** **

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

** **

Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code (864) 239-1000

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

** **

None

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

** **

Limited PartnershipUnits

(Titleof class)

** **

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section15(d) of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will notbe contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy orinformation statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-Kor any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as thelast business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

** **

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
#### Kaercher *v.*Miller, Appellant.

*14Argued November 13, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

Before Reed, P. J., specially presiding.

*Gharles M,*Barrickman, with him *George I. Buckler, George Y. Meyer,*and *Wallover, Barrickman & 8calera,*for appellant.

*J. Leonard Solomon,*for appellee.

December 14, 1961:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Frank E. Reed of the Orphans’ Court, specially presiding for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 518.
#### David Lee WHITE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 6, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Rosa C. Figarola, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Joni B. Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant David Lee White from a judgment of conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of cocaine. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a proper *Richardson*hearing after the defendant brought to the trial court’s attention an alleged discovery violation by the state. *See Richardson v. State,*246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).

Specifically, it is urged that the state failed to disclose a material portion of a post-arrest, oral statement made by the defendant to the police as required by Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(l)(iii). We find no error and affirm because the defendant made no contemporaneous objection to the admission of the defendant’s oral statement in evidence, but instead waited until the state rested its case before raising the issue below. This being so, the defendant has waived the point for appellate review. *Lucas v. State,*376 So.2d 1149 (Fla.1979); *Castor v. State,*365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978); *Grimett v. State,*383 So.2d 698 (Fla. *10504th DCA), *rev. denied,*389 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1980).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.2
AMENDED SCHEDULE OF SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-LEVEL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE EXECUTED AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FILED AS EXHIBIT 10.1 TO DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION’S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MAY 4, 2018, FILED WITH THE SEC ON MAY 31, 2018 (this “Schedule”)
This Schedule amends the Schedule of Senior Vice President-level Executive Officers who have executed an employment agreement in the form of Senior Vice President Employment Agreement filed by Dollar General Corporation as Exhibit 10.1 to its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 4, 2018, filed with the SEC on May 31, 2018. This Schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purposes of setting forth the material details in which the specific employment agreement executed in the form of Senior Vice President Employment Agreement differs from the form as of October 30, 2020.
	Name of Executive Officer
	    
	Title
	    
	Base Salary
	    
	Effective Date
	    
	Date of Execution
	 

	Anita C. Elliott
	​
	Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
	​
	$398,115.00
	​
	April 1, 2018
	​
	April 9, 2018
	​



​
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 4, 2021

No. 0 4

- 20

- 00478

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Albert DAVILA , Individually; Madeline Davila, Individually; and Albert Davila as Trustee of the Albert Peña Davila and Madeline Davila Living Trust, Appellees

From the 225th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CI03387 Honorable Aaron Haas , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellees filed their brief on February 1, 2021. The brief lacks appropriate citations

to authorities and to the record

. Contra Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). There are no citations to the record in Appellee’s brief. Contra id

. On pages 9 through 16, Appellees make numerous legal assertions without appropriate citations to legal authorities. Contra id

. The prayer fails to clearly state the nature of the relief sought. Contra Tex. R. App. P. 38.1( j).

This court may make any order necessary for satisfactory submission of the case if it finds substantive defects in a brief. Id. R. 38.9(b). Therefore, we STRIKE Appellees’ brief and ORDER Appellees to file an amended brief due on or before February 18, 2021. The amended brief must correct all the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g.

, id. R. 38.1.

If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we may STRIKE Appellee’s brief and set this cause for su bmission without an appellee’s brief. See Jackson v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , No. 01

- 03

- 00862

- CV, 2008 WL 921035, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“‘In a civil case, the court will accept as true the facts stated [in the appellant’s brief] unless another party contradicts them.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g)))._________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of February, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. C RUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### DEPENDENTS OF Herman Ray PERKINS, Deceased v. McQUEEN CONTRACTING, INC., and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

No. 57610.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 27, 1988.

Malcolm T. Rogers, Monticello, for appellant.

Jolly W. Matthews, Ingram, Matthews & Stroud, Hattiesburg, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, George County; Darwin M. Maples, Judge.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32: Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of China YCT International Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





September __, 2011
/s/ Yan TingheYan Tinghe, Chief Executive OfficerSeptember __, 2011
/s/Li ChuanminLi Chuanmin, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc
(the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

            (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 16, 2005
                                               /s/ RICHARD J. NAUGHTON
                                               __________________________
                                               Richard J. Naughton
                                               Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc
(the "Company") hereby certifies that, to her knowledge:

            (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 16, 2005

                                              /s/ DONNA G. LEE
                                              _______________________
                                              Donna G. Lee
                                              Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6670

DE’MARION WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus G. WASHINGTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00265-HEH) Submitted: October 17, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. De’Marion Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: De’Marion Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
TENGTU
                    Ratio Worksheet

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Year Ended
                                                                          June 30
                                                                     ------------------

                                                      2003           2002          2001
Earnings:
<S>                                              <C>              <C>           <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations
   before income taxes                            ($1,862,412)     1,578,108   ($  293,169)
Add:
Fixed charges as calculated below                     201,758        254,029       114,852
                                                  -----------    -----------   -----------
Adjusted income (loss)                            ($1,660,654)   $ 1,832,137   ($  178,317)
                                                  ===========    ===========   ===========



Fixed charges:
Interest on indebtedness                          $   107,939    $   167,474   $    35,157
Amortization of debt discount                          93,819         86,555        79,695
                                                  -----------    -----------   -----------
Fixed charges, for computation purposes           $   201,758    $   254,029   $   114,852
                                                  -----------    -----------   -----------
Ratio of earnings (deficiency) to fixed charges         (8.23)          7.21         (1.55)
                                                  ===========    ===========   ===========
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
BOBBY JINDAL

GOVERNOR

HAROLD LEGGETT, PH.D.

SECRETARY

~tate of Jiouisiana

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

December 14, 2009

Alfredo Armendariz, PhD.

Administrator - 6RA

US EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

RE: Finding of Attainment for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard

Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area

Dear Dr. Armendariz:

m

CO

I am pleased to report that in 2008 the five-parish Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area monitored

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Based on

ambient ozone monitoring data for the three-year period 2006-2008, the state of Louisiana requests that

EPA make a finding of attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under the Clean Air Act. The

Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area includes the parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville,

Livingston and West Baton Rouge.

I have attached a copy of the 2008 Ozone Data Certification that was submitted to the US EPA Region 6

Air Quality Analysis Section. The submission of this data certifies that the Baton Rouge Ozone

Nonattainment Area has met the criteria established in the EPA's Clean Data Policy reflected in the May

10, 1995, memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standard."

Achievement of this milestone can be attributed to the implementation of many air control provisions of

both state and federal law and to the diligent efforts through the years of state and local government,

business and industry, environmental organizations and the citizens of the area. We will continue to build

on this progress in order to further improve air quality.

If you have any questions, please contact Michael Vince, Administrator of the Air Quality Assessment

Division at 225-219-3488.

Sine ely,

c: Thomas H. Diggs

Guy Donaldson

Post Office Box 4301 • Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4301 • Phone 225-219-3953 • Fax 225-219-3971

www:.deq.louisiana.gov
#### Evans Unemployment Compensation Case.

Argued December 12, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

*Michael Richard*Evans, appellant, in propria persona.

*Sydney*Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him *David*Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

*200January 16, 1962:

Opinion by

WoodsIde, J.,

In this unemployment compensation case the bureau, referee and board all concluded that the claimant was not qualified to receive benefits under Section 401(f) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §801 (f). The pertinent part of this section provides: “Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who — (f) Has, subsequent to his separation from work under circumstances which are disqualifying under the provisions of subsections 402(b) and 402(e) of this act, been paid remuneration for services in an amount equal to or in excess of eight (8) times his weekly benefit rate, . . .”

The claimant was last employed as a substitute teacher by the Whitehall High School, Hokendauqua. His last and only day of work was May 18, 1961, and his compensation was $18.00. He had a valid separation from this employment.

His immediate prior employment was with the Duro Test Corporation. He was employed by them on a trial basis, as a door to door salesman, and his last day of work was on May 4, 1961. He worked there for four days and received $80 compensation.

The board found that claimant had voluntarily terminated his employment with the Duro Test Corporation without cause of necessitous and compelling nature. As to this employment, he was, therefore, under the disqualifying provision of §402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §802(b) (1).

If the above finding of the board is correct there is no question that the claimant was rightfully denied benefits under §401 (f), supra, 43 P.S. §801 (f).

There is competent testimony to support the board’s findings. Previous to his employment with the Duro Test Corporation, the claimant had been unemployed for approximately nine months. He admits that his *201employer had no complaints with his work and that he “quit” because he could not do that type of work.

This Court has held that: “Dissatisfaction with one’s own qualifications, when the employer raises no objection, does not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntary termination of employment.” *Simon Unemployment Compensation Case,*188 Pa. Superior Ct. 613, 614, 615, 149 A. 2d 653 (1959).

Decision affirmed.
cc: Hon. Cynthia N. Giuliani, District Judge 

Kimberly Striplin Ann Moore 

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 2 

(0)-1947 ce,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 97-303

MARILYN HOBIN, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before HOLDAWAY, IVERS, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

On May 14, 2001, the parties in this case filed a joint motion to dismiss the appellant's

application for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The parties

have entered into a stipulated agreement whereby the appellant releases the Secretary from

liability for any further claims for attorney fees and expenses in this case. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the joint motion to dismiss the appellant's EAJA application is granted.

DATED: July 10, 2001 PER CURIAM.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 28

Amending paragraph 1(m)(1) of rule XXV.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1999

Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to

RESOLUTION

Amending paragraph 1(m)(1) of rule XXV.

1 Resolved, That paragraph 1(m)(1) of rule XXV is

2 amended as follows:

3 (1) Strike ‘‘Committee on Labor and Human

4 Resources’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘Committee on

5 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions’’.

6 (2) Strike ‘‘Handicapped individuals’’ and in7 sert in lieu thereof ‘‘Individuals with disabilities’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Murphy ALLO.

No. 88-K-1848.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 19, 1988.

In re Alio, Murphy; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-KA-0831; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 85-1727.

Prior report: La.App., 525 So.2d 664.

Denied.
August 8, 2016

Mr. Zachary E. McFarlane

In Focus Media

4826 Brand Way

Sacramento, CA 95819

Re: FAA–2015–8258

Dear Mr. McFarlane:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst