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

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             63533
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      56890
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                        49398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  174081
<PP&E>                                             95020
<DEPRECIATION>                                     42786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    248166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              77592
<BONDS>                                            33935
<COMMON>                                            2012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        127010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      248166
<SALES>                                           196134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  196134
<CGS>                                             133573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     133573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    22377
<INCOME-TAX>                                        8152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                14453
<DISCONTINUED>                                     11760
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       26213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.62
        

</TABLE>
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21221

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID LOYCE SPEER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-27-ALL

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Loyce Speer appeals his guilty-plea conviction under

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon. He argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea,

which showed his intrastate possession of a firearm manufactured

outside the state, was insufficient to establish the nexus with

interstate commerce required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He

argues, in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in
No. 01-21221

-2-

Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v.

Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), that the interstate commerce

element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) requires something more than the

mere fact that the firearm previously crossed state lines. He

acknowledges that his claim is foreclosed by existing Fifth

Circuit precedent and states that he raises the claim to preserve

it for possible Supreme Court review. 

Speer's claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See

United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712-13 (5th Cir. 2002);

United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 & n.12 (5th Cir.

2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002). Accordingly, the

district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
REGIONAL M

AIRPORT

V

MID-o.Hlo. VALLEY REGlo.NAL AIRPo.RT

Po. Box 4089, Parkersburg, WV 26104 P: 304.464.5113 F 304.464.5112 wwwttymov.com

June 12,2014

Mr. Michael Gormas

Office of Aviation Analysis

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Order 2014-3-12, Docket OST-2005-20734

Dear Mr. Gormas:

In response to your email of May 28, 2014 requesting comments on an Essential Air Service

proposal for the Mid Ohio Valley Regional Airport, we have reviewed the bids and we support

the selection of Silver Airways.

The Silver Airways bid of 18 flights a week, two non-stop and one one-stop round trips each

weekday, to Washington Dulles International Airport best meets the needs of our community.

Although we benefit greatly from our present flight frequency (we have four daily weekday

nights with 19 passenger aircraft), the 34 seat Saab aircraft will enhance passenger convenience

and give our airport true passenger growth potential. In addition, Silver's codeshare arrangement

with United Airlines and numerous interline agreements with other air carriers were key factors

in our decision. Lastly, Washington Dulles, being a United Airlines hub, provides our

community with the greatest number of non-stop destinations; over 80 domestic and 40

internati 0nal.

We are grateful for the other bids that we received utilizing the Pittsburgh Airport as the hub

airport. Pittsburgh has been a key airport in our history. However, at this point in time,

Pittsburgh does not have a hub airline that would provide the destination opportunities that our

community has grown accustomed to by flying through Cleveland.

Also, we want to thank the three other airlines that bid on our service, Boutique Air, City Link

Air and Sun Air. We are happy to see other airlines interest in the Essential Air Service program.

Their lack of codeshare and interline agreements were a major negative to us. Without these

arrangements, passengers from our community would have faced many challenges in Pittsburgh,

whether it was in transfer of baggage on connecting flights or potentially having to go in and out

of security if a flight connection is missed. Also, we were not confident that the airlines could

handle the start-up ofncw service to all of the cities they bid. We have endured that problem

before when a new airline was awarded our service bid and never provided the service. It took

us many years to recover from the total disruption of service and resultant loss of passengers.

We applaud the efforts of these airlines but, at this time, feel Silver Airways is the best option for

our community.
Accordingly, Irequest that the Silver Airways, 18 flights a week option to Washington Dulles

International Airport, be awarded the Essential Air Service contract for the Mid Ohio Valle~

Regional Airport. I

Sincerely,

(bJ~ (/fl.)x-:::tC

David M. Scott

President

Mid Ohio Valley Regional Airport Authority
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jewel Scott, Relator, against Thomas McDonnell, as Warden of the Penitentiary of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

August 13, 1954.

*Selig Lenefsky*for relator.

*George B. Be Luca*for respondent.

*444Jacob Markowitz, J.

This is an application brought on by writ of habeas corpus for the release of the relator on the ground that he was illegally sentenced to an indeterminate penitentiary term pursuant to the so-called Parole Commission Law, article 7-A of the Correction Law. His contention is that the sentencing court by asserting at the time of sentence that he had “ a long record of convictions ” conclusively established that he was not a fit subject for reformation and therefore that he could only be sentenced under the maximum term provisions of the Penal Law. This department has consistently held that such contention is without merit. Far more severe expressions by sentencing courts as to the incorrigibility and propensity for criminality of the defendant before it have been held consistent with the possibility of redemption contemplated by the aforesaid article 7-A. It is to be presumed that the sentencing court did not disregard its duty under the law. (See *People ex rel. Schurman*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 448; *People ex rel. Granza*v. *Johnston,*9 Misc 2d 446, affd. 271 App. Div. 825; *People ex rel. Halle*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 451, affd. 268 App. Div. 765.)

Writ is dismissed and the relator is remanded.
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, Drew
A. Moyer, Principal Financial Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 25,
      2009 (the “Periodic Report”) which this statement accompanies fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
  and





(2)
            information
      contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Technitrol,
      Inc.







Dated:  November 4,
      2009
            /s/ Drew A. MoyerDrew
      A. Moyer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be retained by
Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
Order filed November 10, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00868

- CV

____________ ESTATE OF DAISY MAE DAVIS, DECEASED , Appellant

On Appeal from the Probate Court No

. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 414,794

- 401



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 8, 2015. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellants are excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before November 25, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails t o timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
exv10w34



 






EXHIBIT 10.34




NVR, Inc.

Summary of the 2006 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan




     The following is a description of NVR, Inc.’s (“NVR”) 2006 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.



     Virtually all of NVR’s management employees participate in the Bonus Plan, including all NVR’s
executive officers. Under the Bonus Plan, each executive officer has a maximum potential payout
limited to 100% of his base salary. The annual incentive award is based on actual financial
results compared to the business plan approved by NVR’s Board of Directors. At the beginning of
each year, financial targets that are tied to NVR’s annual business plan are established by NVR’s
Compensation Committee. The financial target for corporate executives is based on NVR, Inc.’s
consolidated pre-tax profit (before consolidated annual incentive and stock-based compensation
expense but after all other charges). The financial targets used for the mortgage banking
operation are pre-tax profit (before annual incentive expense and certain corporate cost
allocations) and return on invested capital. The financial targets used for the homebuilding
operation are profit before tax and annual incentive expense, but after a charge for the cost of
capital, and return on assets.



     An executive officer begins to earn the incentive award once the financial targets are at
least 70% attained. The full amount of the incentive award is earned ratably from 70% up to 100%
of the financial target attainment. The executive officers can earn no more than 100% of their
base salary as an incentive award, which is earned once 100% of the financial targets are attained.
Thus, attainment of greater than 100% of the financial target has no impact on the amount of the
incentive award earned.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7915
CALVIN G. GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM TED JONES, Individually and in his personal capacity as a private citizen and in his official capacity as a Bluefield, West Virginia Police Officer and/or Detective;RICHARD M. POE, Individually and in his personal capacity as a private citizen and in his official capacity as a former Sergeant of The Bluefield City Police Department and currentChief of Police of the Bluefield, West Virginia Police Department, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at B luefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-95-861-1) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin G. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Jones , No. CA-95-861-1 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
1

Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Hoene, Benjamin E. [bhoene@marathonoil.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:18 AM

To: Schaffner, Karen S.

Subject: RE: RTR MVL: telecon summary for IN Marathon Petroleum Clarksville Terminal

I have not received any comments nor revisions to date.

 

I think we are good.

 

Thanks Karen,

 

Ben Hoene

From: Schaffner, Karen S. [mailto:ksschaffner@rti.org] 

Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:14 AM 

To: Hoene, Benjamin E. 

Subject: RE: RTR MVL: telecon summary for IN Marathon Petroleum Clarksville Terminal

Thanks Ben. Please share comments or revisions as needed. Karen 

From: Hoene, Benjamin E. [mailto:bhoene@marathonoil.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:55 PM 

To: Schaffner, Karen S. 

Subject: RE: RTR MVL: telecon summary for IN Marathon Petroleum Clarksville Terminal 

Thanks Karen,

 

I forwarded this email on to my bosses for their review. It looks fine with me.

 

I am going to print and file in my Clarksville files for future reference if needed.

 

Thanks again,

 

Ben Hoene

Marathon Petroleum Company LLC

812/288-5571 ext 103

 

From: Schaffner, Karen S. [mailto:ksschaffner@rti.org] 

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:39 AM 

To: Hoene, Benjamin E. 

Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RTR MVL: telecon summary for IN Marathon Petroleum Clarksville Terminal

Hi Ben: Thank you for talking with me this morning. I typed up a draft summary of our conversation, attached. If you 

have a few minutes, please review it to make certain I understood correctly. 

Thanks, Karen 
2

Karen Schaffner

Air Quality Engineering Group

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

phone: (919) 316 3740

fax: (919) 541 7155
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June 30,
1997 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       928636
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     141209
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          207296
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         25710
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  359530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1662381
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       225943
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             562303
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  788246
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            477113
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    38736
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  358286
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1662381
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       262156
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             25184
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      180029
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      205213
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          56943
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 867
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   57810
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         20188
<NET-INCOME>                                     37622
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         27250
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           90940
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 22740.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1944.

Jimmie Cunningham, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been so stolen; punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

Apparently appellant has been released pending appeal upon a purported appeal bond which is fatally defective. In the first place, it fails to recite that appellant had been convicted of a felony as is required by the provisions of Articles 817 and 818, C.C.P., but recites only that appellant stood charged with a felony. In form the bond is for appearance for trial rather than pending appeal and is insufficient. Doddy v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 240 S.W. 555; Lynch v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 638, 279 S.W. 271; Wall v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 116, 7 S.W.2d 958.

In the second place, the bond in question bears the approval of the sheriff only, whereas Art. 818, C.C.P., requires the approval of both the sheriff and the trial judge. Golle v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 233, 246 S.W. 1040. Pages of other authorities will be found in the Cumulative Pocket Part of Vol. 3, Vernon’s Ann.Tex. C.C.P., under Art. 818.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Cannon, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this appeal from convictions, upon a jury verdict, of sodomy, unlawful imprisonment, robbery and grand larceny, we find no merit to defendant’s claims of *860reversible error. Defendant failed to object to the submission of a verdict sheet to the jury and, in fact, told the jury, during summation, that "the typed explanation will be helpful.” Thus, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Hill,*163 AD2d 852; *People v Hill,*163 AD2d 813; *People v Barber,*154 AD2d 882, *lv denied*75 NY2d 810, 917; *People v Ryan,*152 AD2d 960, *lv denied*74 NY2d 899). Moreover, since defendant was acquitted of two counts of rape and sodomy, it does not appear that he was prejudiced by the composition of the verdict sheet. Although the court’s instructions concerning possible verdicts were somewhat confusing, the court’s charge, read as a whole, properly instructed the jury that they must assess the guilt or innocence of the two defendants "independently and separately.” We further conclude that the convictions are supported by the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J.—sodomy, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10148

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSARO DARLINGTON ASEMOTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:93-CR-349-G

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Osaro Darlington Asemota appeals the district court’s

refusal to grant a downward departure in his sentence on the

basis of the collateral consequences of his status as a

deportable alien and the imminent deportation proceedings facing

him upon completion of his sentence. “Collateral consequences,

such as the likelihood of deportation or ineligibility for more

lenient conditions of imprisonment, that an alien may incur
No. 97-10148

- 2 -

following a federal conviction are not a basis for downward

departure.” United States v. Nnanna, 7 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir.

1993). The district court did not err in concluding that it

lacked the authority to award a downward departure. Id. 

AFFIRMED.