alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   150
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         70
<COMMON>                                         10280
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       150
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (71811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (71811)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (71811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (71811)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-99821 and 333-45672 on Forms S-8 and No. 333-106581 on Form
S-3 of Belmont Bancorp. of our report dated February 17, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Belmont Bancorp. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2004, which report is included in this 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Belmont Bancorp.



/s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLCCrowe Chizek and Company LLC




Cleveland, Ohio

March 30, 2005
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT 23

                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Maverick Restaurant Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
33-72320) on Form S-8 of Maverick Restaurant Corporation of our report dated
March 21, 1997, except as to note 11, which is as of March 24, 1997, relating to
the balance sheets of Maverick Restaurant Corporation as of January 26, 1997 and
January 28, 1996, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 26,
1997, which report appears in the January 26, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of
Maverick Restaurant Corporation.





                                                 KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Wichita, Kansas
April 22, 1997
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1422 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 

the suspension of the limitation on the period for which certain borrowers 

are eligible for guaranteed assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 7, 2011 

Mr. BOSWELL (for himself, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. KING of 

Iowa, Mr. LATHAM, and Mr. BRALEY of Iowa) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to extend the suspension of the limitation on 

the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for 

guaranteed assistance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR 

4 WHICH BORROWERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 

5 GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE. 

6 Section 5102 of the Farm Security and Rural Invest7 ment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1949 note; Public Law 107– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1422 IH

1 171) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5133

PAMELA Y. DOMINICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Pamela Y. Dominick , of Dayton, Ohio, pro se. Christopher L. Krafchek , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States D epartment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Alan J. Lo Re , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Nancy B. FirestoneNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5133 PAMELA Y. DOMINICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 09-CV-096, Judge Nancy B. Firestone.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: February 3, 2010

______ ____________________ Before LOURIE, CLEVENGE R and RADER, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Pamela Y. Dominick appeals from the final judgment of the Un ited States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Dominick v. United States , No. 09-96C (July 21, 2009). We affirm

. I Ms. Dominick was employed for 18 years by the Department of the Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio before her termination on August 1, 1993, based on charges that she misused a government-issued credit card. Ms. Dominick filed her complaint in the C ourt of Federal Clai ms on February 19, 2009, alleging that she had bee n terminated because of her race. The United Statesmoved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction over employment discrimination claims lies in the United States District Courts. The Court of Federal Claims afforded Ms. Dominick, proceeding pro se , opportunities to respond. Ms. Dominick di d not respond to the motion to dismiss, instead asking for an opportunity to meet wit h the court. The court granted the motion to dismiss. II We review the dismissal of a case for la ck of jurisdiction without deference to the trial court. Sacco v. United States , 452 F.3d 1305, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The jurisdiction of the United St ates District Courts over employment race discrimination cases "create[s] an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employm ent discrimination." Brow n v. Gen. Servs. Admin. 425 U.S. 820, 829 (1976). Consequently, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit alleging such discrimination. The Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed Ms. Dominick's compla int for lack of jurisdiction, and we therefore affirm its final judgment. COSTS No costs.

2009-5133 2
# ~~ DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TOGETHER WE SOAR
June 10, 2015 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Docket No. OST-2013-0204 Dear Secretary Foxx: Department of Aviation Airport Office Building 8500 Pefia Boulevard Denver, Colorado 80249 303
.342.2200 www.flydenver
.com

Denver International Airport (DEN) writesto urge you to issue afinal decision in the long-pending matterof Norwegian Air International's (NAI) application for aforeign air carrier permit. NAI's application has been complete since February 2014. DEN is well aware ofconcerns the European Commission has raised about this delay and itsviewthat it constitutes aviolation ofthe US-EU Open Skies agreement. We are concerned that further delay could promptthe Commission to take retaliatory action thereby putting current Denver-Europe air service at risk. In its Motion for Leave to File and Expedited Treatment, NAI voluntarily committed to only use US and European crews fortransatlantic flights, as well as direct employees ofthe company for such flights. It is our understanding these twovoluntary concessions may address fully concerns that opponents have raised about NAI's alternate labor model. Ifthat is the case, the Department nowwill be in a position to issue afinal decision and thereby eliminate the risk of European retaliation. Removing that cloud of concern and uncertaintywould be welcome news for consumers and communities with European air service like Denver. Thank you for considering Denver International Airport's views in this important matter. Given the voluntary commitments NAI has made, we hope you will conclude the Department now is in a position to issue a decision on its pending foreign air carrier permit application. Sincerely,

icer
#### Addie Mae Webb DEAL et vir, Appellants, v. Mike A. McLEROY, Appellee.

No. 3869.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 18, 1961.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1961.

Bierwirth & Rosenbaum, Leonard Z. Finger, Houston, for- appellants.

Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Gibson Gayle, Jr., Houston, for appellee.

WILSON, Justice.

Appellant contends certain jury findings in a rear-end automobile collision case are contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. These findings are to the effect that defendant did not fail to make proper application of his brakes, that the collision was the result of an unavoidable accident, and defendant was acting in emergency in which he used due care.

Appellant says the court erred in overruling her motion for judgment non obstante veredicto on these grounds. Such judgment may not be rendered on the basis findings are contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. Gulf, Colo*935rado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Deen, 158 Tex. 466, 312 S.W.2d 933, 937.

It is urged that the motion for new trial was erroneously overruled for the same reasons. The evidence was conflicting. There is adequate evidence from which the jury could have properly decided that appellee was led to believe the automobile occupied by appellant would continue traveling across the intersection in question when the green traffic control signal light changed to an amber caution light; that appellants’ vehicle stopped suddenly and unexpectedly, and that an ordinarily prudent person would not necessarily have anticipated the stop in time to apply brakes in a manner other than did appellee.

We have reviewed the evidence, and the points are overruled. Affirmed.
# Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge

Southeast Region

Refuge Finder • Service Finder • Office Finder • Contact Finder •

Cedar Keys NWR • Lower

Suwannee

NWR ◦

Staff • Directions • FAQ • Calendar of Events • Visitor Recreation • Regulations • News • Publications • Wildlife • Habitat • Atsena Otie Key • Lets Go Outside • Resources for Kids • Resources for

Teachers •

You Can Help • Internships ◦ Contact Us • 

## Welcome to Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge

Aerial shot of North Key. Credit: USFWS

We hope these pages will provide information helpful to you in planning a trip to one of the best kept secrets in Florida.

The term “Keys” comes from the Indian word “cayo”, meaning “small island”. This is a very appropriate term for this unique area! Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge is a group of fragile coastal islands just off the village of Ce dar Key, Florida. Established in 1929, Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge contains significant natural and cultural resources from pre-historic and historic ti mes. Today, the Refuge c onsists of 13 islands ranging in size from 1 to 120 acres, totaling 762 acres. Ancient Indi an cultures once used these off-shore islands as camps, later creating living areas – where food from the Gulf was plentiful and readily availa ble. In more recent history, the famous Fa ber Pencil Mill was located on Atsena Otie Key w here its remains can be seen today.

Wading birds, shorebirds, fishes, manatees, bald eagles, crabs, and even reptiles are some of the species of wildlife that find suitable habitat on the islands and marshes that make-up Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. An historic lighthouse, now leased by the University of Florida as a Marine Scienc e Lab, sits atop the Pleistecene dune relic, Seahorse Key. Their goal is to conduct im portant research while at the same time educatinge future conservation leaders abou t the importance of this unique ecosystem.

Most public use at Cedar Keys N WR is focu sed on Atsena Otie Key which is owned by the Suwannee River Water Management District and managed as part of the Refuge. Here visitors will find a pier, time line information, toilet facility, and a walking trail to a 19th century cemetery..

Interested in Refuge Facts??

Dock at Atsena Otie.

Credit: USFWS Atsenie Otie Trail.

Credit: USFWS Snake Key. Credit:

USFWS 

### Pa g e 1 of 2 Cedar Ke y s National Wildlife Refu g e

7/25/2011 htt p ://www.fws. g ov/cedarke y s /Last updated: June 14, 2010 

### Pa g e 2 of 2 Cedar Ke y s National Wildlife Refu g e

7/25/2011 htt p ://www.fws. g ov/cedarke y s /
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-75,475-08

EX PARTE RICKY MORRISON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2007-417,356-G IN THE 137 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment.

In his present application, Applicant raises three grounds. This application, however,

presents a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed six prior

applications pertaining to this conviction. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to

raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been
2

presented in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. 

Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 

Because of his repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under

Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is

dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals not to accept or file the

instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application pertaining to this conviction

unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims presented have not been

raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous application for a writ of

habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: November 20, 2019

Do not publish
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDERICK RUTHERFORD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1959

[ October 24, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Laura Johnson , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502003CF006439AXXXMB

.

Frederick Rutherford, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, C IKLIN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
|EXHIBIT 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                       
|   



|Date: August 9, 2005
|--------------------



| | /s/ James L. O'ConnorJames L. O'ConnorChief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
|                                     |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                     |  |  |
| City National Bank of West Virginia |   |   |
| 3601 MacCorkle Avenue S.E.          |   | Insured Depository |
| Charleston, West Virginia           | National Banking Association | Institution |
|                                |   |   |
| City Financial Corporation          |   | Inactive Securities |
| 3601 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E.         |   | Brokerage and Investment |
| Charleston, West Virginia           | West Virginia Corporation | Advisory Company |
|                                |   |   |
| City Mortgage Corporation           |   | Inactive Mortgage Banking |
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania            | Pennsylvania Corporation | Company |
|                                |   |   |
| City Capital Management Company     |   |   |
| 300 Delaware Avenue                 |   | Capital Management |
| Wilmington, Delaware                | Delaware Corporation | Company |
|                                |   |   |
| City Holding Capital Trust          |   |   |
| 25 Gatewater Road                   |   | Special-purpose Statutory |
| Cross Lanes, West Virginia          | Delaware Business Trust | Trust |
Exhibit
4.4.1.11


 


Synopisis of terms of
employment for Debra Stirling


 


Ms Stirling does not have a formally documented employment
contract.  The terms of her employment
are a combination of common law and statutory provisions and terms agreed
between Ms Stirling and the company. 
Her employment is also subject to a Federal staff award and agreements
between the company and the CSR & Rinker Salaried Staff Association.  The key provisions include:


•                  Term of employment - other than in the case
of misconduct, the company is required to give 12 months notice of termination,
or may provide payment in lieu of notice. 
If payment in lieu of notice is given, the amount will be equivalent to
12 months total remuneration - including at least target incentives.  If she is made redundant, Ms Stirling is
entitled to the greater of: (a) the amount referred to in the previous
sentence; or (b) 3 months base remuneration (base remuneration is equivalent to
approximately 75% of fixed remuneration) plus 0.7 months base remuneration per
year of service, up to a maximum of 24 months base remuneration.  Unpaid amounts of accrued leave are also
payable.  Ms Stirling is required to
give 3 months notice of termination.


•                  Fixed remuneration is reviewed annually.  Ms Stirling is eligible to participate in
both long and short-term incentive plans.


•                  Employee share plans - Ms Stirling is
entitled to participate in employee share plans available to Australian
executives and employees.


•                  Superannuation - Ms Stirling is a member of a
Rinker group sponsored superannuation fund and is entitled to benefits in
accordance with the rules of that fund.


•                  Leave entitlements - Ms Stirling is entitled
to leave in accordance with the Federal staff award and agreements.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Kathleen P. Bloch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
      Report of Langer, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
      Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of Langer, Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Dated:
                  March 31, 2008
              /s/
                Kathleen P. BlochKathleen
                  P. Bloch, Vice President and
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE

OF EDWARD R. PORTILLO

DECEASED. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00167

- CV

Appeal from the

Statutory Probate Court No. 2

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018CPR00773)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellants all costs of app eal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.