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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                         651,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,402,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,079,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,585,283
<PP&E>                                       4,736,667
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,487,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,671,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,999,448
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,324
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,481,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,671,403
<SALES>                                      6,340,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,367,776
<CGS>                                        2,865,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,270,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,423
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,423
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
```
Structured Asset Securities Corporation  Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates  Series 2002-13
```

```
Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions to
Certificateholders for 2002
```

```
Class   Interest           Principal Paid Realized    Ending Balance
        Distribution                      Losses
```

```
AP      0.00               308,217.03     0.00        1,862,616.97
AX      74,925.32          0.00           0.00        1,443,213.69
B1      323,637.58         44,454.11      0.00        9,564,545.89
B2      128,137.49         17,094.17      0.00        3,677,905.83
B3      96,359.76          11,621.27      0.00        2,500,378.73
B4      67,973.52          8,197.81       0.00        1,763,802.19
B5      45,302.90          5,463.67       0.00        1,175,536.33
B6      45,622.97          5,502.23       0.00        1,183,841.77
BX      58,555.86          0.00           0.00        1,375,040.98
E       0.00               0.00           0.00        0.00
IA1     706,123.33         3,746,763.43   0.00        22,253,236.57
IA2     331,034.64         4,359,870.18   0.00        25,165,129.82
IA3     863,258.21         0.00           0.00        25,165,129.82
IA4     1,394,605.41       7,629,772.82   0.00        43,370,227.18
IA5     168,707.52         0.00           0.00        5,191,000.00
IAP     0.00               14,119.15      0.00        286,185.85
IAX     248,744.44         0.00           0.00        6,751,110.73
IIA1    907,650.21         17,207,203.96  0.00        69,161,796.04
IIA2    100,886.22         1,912,597.79   0.00        7,687,402.21
IIA3    2,788,572.55       0.00           0.00        76,849,198.25
IIA4    81,218.44          0.00           0.00        2,500,000.00
IIA5    24,990.24          0.00           0.00        588,235.00
IIIA1   659,180.83         8,324,811.83   0.00        54,731,188.17
IIIA2   1,880,873.33       0.00           0.00        54,731,188.17
IPAX    160,038.06         0.00           0.00        4,590,660.90
P       205,025.45         0.00           0.00        0.00
PAX     142,780.46         0.00           0.00        3,279,062.65
R       0.54               100.00         0.00        0.00
```
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).

SS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR ALBERTO PORTILLONOLASCO; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72836

Agency Nos. A079-656-200

 A079-656-190

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Alberto Portillo-Nolasco and Maria Gomez-Portillo, natives and

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SS/Research 2 07-72836

ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo

due process claims. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We

deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen because petitioners have not established prejudice from the alleged

ineffective assistance. See id. at 1024 (challenges based on ineffective assistance

of counsel require showing of prejudice). Petitioners’ motion does not explain

what additional evidence they would present to establish a nexus to a protected

ground. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 1999).

We may not consider petitioners’ new evidence regarding current conditions

in El Salvador. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(“[T]he court of appeals shall decide

the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is

based.”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BRYNNE SOUKUP, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648

§

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., §

§

Defendant. § 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.

c/o The Prentice Hall Corporation, Registered Agent

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620

Austin, TX 78701-3218 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you 

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose 

names and addresses are: 

Daniel B. Ross

Texas State Bar No. 00789810

dan@rosslawgroup.com

Trenton Lacy

Texas State Bar No. 24106176

trenton@rosslawgroup.com

1104 San Antonio Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 474-7677 Telephone

(512) 474-5306 Facsimile

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

 CLERK OF COURT 

Date:

 Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

Case 1:20-cv-00648 Document 3 Filed 06/21/20 Page 1 of 2

-LY 6/22/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 4 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) 

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place 

of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and d\iscretion who resides there, 

on ( date ) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or 

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is 

. 

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ . 

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: 

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address Additional 

information regarding attempted service, etc: 

.

; or

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 4 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:20-cv-00648 Document 3 Filed 06/21/20 Page 2 of 2
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

E K. LINDEMAN 

SUBSEIWYI 

is—La 

Hardesty 

Cdr 

, J. 

Pidevid J. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

JOSEPH RAMON PEREZ, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 69575 

FILED 

FEB 1 2 2016 

This appeal was initiated by the filing of a pro se appeal. 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge. 

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The 

notice of appeal states that appellant "appeals the Judgement of 

conviction entered ...on or about the 30 day of December, 2015." No order 

or final judgment was entered on December 30, 2015. To the extent 

appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on October 9, 

2015, the notice of appeal is untimely filed. NRAP 4(b); NRS 34,575(1); 

NRAP 26(a); NRAP 26(c). Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to 

vest jurisdiction in this court, Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 

944, 946 (1994), we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider this 

appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Saitta Pickering 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1947A 1CD - b-13L0 
cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge 

Joseph Ramon Perez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A (e) 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Small Business Industrial Innovation (61).                    

*Date/Time:*                         November 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 130, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Joseph Hennessey, Acting Director, Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs, Room 590, Division of Design, Manufacturing, and Industrial Innovation, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 292-7069.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 522b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-26324  Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Darryl S. Nakamoto, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of Hoku Scientific, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, as follows:

The Companys Annual Report on Form
10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of
this 29th day of June, 2006.



|    |  |                                                 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ DARRYL S. NAKAMOTO                          
|    |  | Darryl S. Nakamoto                              
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
|    |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)    

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to Hoku Scientific, Inc. and will be retained by Hoku Scientific, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-K 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 Hoku Scientific,
Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
1 | Page

Thomas Retzlaff

2402 E. Esplanade Ln.

PO Box 46424

Phoenix, Arizona 85063-6424

210-317-9800

Retzlaff@texas.net

June 28, 2020

U.S. District Clerk’s Office

501 West 5th Street, Suite 1100 

Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Request for Issuance of a Subpoena

Cause No. 1:20-MC-00657-LY; Van Dyke v. Retzlaff; in the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of Texas.

 

Dear Sir / Ma’am:

I have enclosed a subpoena that I need y’all to sign off on and return by 

email to me so I can get it served ASAP on an individual.

Please let me know if there is a charge for this and I will give you my 

credit card.

I thank you for your time and most kind assistance in this matter.

Respectfully,

__________________

Thomas Retzlaff

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 9 Filed 06/28/20 Page 1 of 1
SO4 Contributions to MT Class I Areas

Montana (ug/m3)

Montana (%)

Canada (ug/m3)

Canada (%)

Idaho (ug/m3)

Idaho (%)

Washington (ug/m3)

Washington (%)

Oregon (ug/m3)

Oregon (%) Ou

Do(ug

Anaconda-Pintler WA 0.02 4 0.08 14 0.08 13 0.06 10 0.04 7 Bob Marshall WA 0.05 6 0.10 14 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.03 4 Cabinet Mountains WA 0.02 3 0.14 17 0.06 7 0.11 14 0.04 5 Gates of the Mountains WA 0.05 8 0.01 1 0.03 4 0.04 6 0.02 3 Glacier NP 0.08 10 0.19 24 0.02 2 0.05 6 0.04 5 Medicine Lake WA 0.06 3 1.06 50 0.01 0 0.04 2 0.02 1 Mission Mountain WA 0.05 6 0.10 14 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.03 4 Red Rock Lakes WA 0.01 1 0.03 5 0.04 8 0.02 4 0.02 4 Scapegoat WA 0.05 6 0.10 14 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.03 4 Selway-Bitterroot WA 0.02 4 0.08 14 0.08 13 0.06 10 0.04 7 U.L. Bend WA 0.06 5 0.41 34 0.01 1 0.03 2 0.02 1 Yellowstone NP 0.01 1 0.03 5 0.04 8 0.02 4 0.02 4
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41

VERTIS

       To:  Vertis Executives (Roland, Moloney, Durbin, Howard, Leggett, Roosen)

     From:  Don Roland

     Date:  March 22, 2002

       Re:  Fiscal Year 2002 Executive Incentive Plan Components

          I am pleased to confirm your participation in the 2002 Executive
          Incentive Plan.

MEMO      The basis on which our plan is measured is proforma EBITDA. For the
          2002 EIP, the Vertis EBITDA component accounts for 100% of the bonus
          calculation. During the year the plan design will be reviewed and may
          be amended. Any resulting changes will be communicated to you at that
          time. Details of the 2002 EIP are outlined below for your reference.

          EIP TARGET - Your EIP target incentive is 75% and is based on your
          base salary as of December 31, 2002. This provides for automatic
          increases to your EIP incentive as your base salary increases during
          the plan year.

          VERTIS EBITDA - measures "Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
          Depreciation and Amortization", excluding approved restructuring
          charges
          -    100% of your bonus is based on Vertis EBITDA. The target at 100%
               achievement is $243.9 million.
          -    If Vertis EBITDA calculates at 90% of target or below, there will
               be no Vertis component payout. For every 1% achieved over 90%,
               the plan will pay out 10%, up to 100% at the EBITDA target.
          -    For every 1% achieved above the target and up to 115% of target,
               the plan will pay out an additional 6.67%, with a maximum EBITDA
               payout of 200%.

          As part of the Vertis management team, we have an opportunity to help
          influence and ensure the company's success while, at the same time,
          garnering personal rewards through EIP bonuses.

          We have a lot going for us: an excellent set of Values, a solid
          business plan and a strong team in place to carry it out. I look
          forward to working with you as we focus on our mission and the
          strategic objectives that will lead to our success and, ultimately, to
          the realization of the Vertis vision.


PO Box 17102
Baltimore, Maryland 21297

250 West Pratt Street
18th Floor                                                         [VERTIS LOGO]
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
T 410.528.9800
F 410.528.9288
www.vertisinc.com
#### BEARD v. STATE.

No. 22208.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct 21, 1942.

'Wm. E. Davenport, of San Angelo, for appellant

*88Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of wool, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The prosecution is under the Acts of the 45th Legislature, Chp. 357, p. 709, designated as Art. 1426c, Vernon’s Tex.Ann.P. C. The indictment charged the, theft of wool from J. W. Barr in Concho County.

It is urged that the evidence does not meet the requirements of Art. 718, C.C.P., which forbids a conviction upon the testimony of an accomplice “unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant” with the commission of the offense charged. It is further contended that the identification of the alleged stolen property is incomplete.

Mr. Barr’s evidence shows that he had some “dead” wool — part of it in sacks— in his pasture in Concho County, and that some of the sacks of wool were taken without his consent by someone. He never saw the sacks or wool after it was taken, but the Sheriff of Tom Green County paid him $53, the proceeds of the wool which was recovered.

The Sheriff of Tom Green County testified that about 2 A. M. on the 28th day of January, 1942, he saw appellant near his home in San Angelo, and “found a lot of ‘dead’ wool in his (appellant’s) possession; that wool was in two big cotton sacks.” Lloyd Yell was with appellant at the time. The sheriff does not testify whether the wool was in an automobile, and if so, who was driving the car, and states no fact to support his conclusion that the wool was taken from the possession of appellant rather than from his companion. It is scarcely necessary to say that the evidence related up to this point would not support a conviction, or tend to show that the wool recovered by the sheriff in San Angelo in Tom Green County was stolen from Mr. Barr in Concho' County, and yet this is all the evidence save that of the accomplice witnesses, Yell and Williams. They each testified that they in company with appellant went in a car belonging to Yell’s father to Concho County and took the wool in question from a place which Yell and Williams subsequently pointed out to the officers, and which was the pasture of Mr. Barr.

The evidence of the accomplice witnesses, no doubt, accounts for the fact that the sheriff paid Mr. Barr the proceeds of the wool, but the identification of the wool rests solely upon the testimony of the accomplice witnesses, as well as appellant’s connection with the theft.

The conviction can not stand if effect be given to said Art. 718, C.C.P. See Fitzgerald v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 359, 145 S. W.2d 190; Willard v. State, 130 Tex.Cr. R. 83, 92 S.W.2d 251, and cases cited in the latter opinion.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.