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



EXHIBIT 32.B 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2005, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the Company) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer,
certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Greg G. GruberGreg G. GruberSenior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer) May 11, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 5, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00390-CV

SARAH HAWKINS, Appellant

V.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF MCKINNEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-00584-2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

The filing fee and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated April 6, 2018, 

we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee 

within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of 

the appeal. By letter dated May 25, 2018, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been 

filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide 

verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written 

documentation appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs within ten 

days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal 

without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

180390F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SARAH HAWKINS, Appellant

No. 05-18-00390-CV V.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 

MCKINNEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-00584-2018.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Evans 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF MCKINNEY recover 

its costs of this appeal from appellant SARAH HAWKINS.

Judgment entered this 5th day of July, 2018.
Energy East Exhibit 10-6 2005 10-K



Exhibit 10-6



AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

THE ENERGY EAST CORPORATION 

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN - - DIRECTOR SHARE PLAN 




         The Energy East Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan - Director Share Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended effective January 1, 2005, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, as follows:

         1.  Section 2, Participation and Election by a Director, insert "non-employee" prior to "Energy East Director" in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

         2.  Section 5, Payment of Amounts Deferred, the language in such section after the second sentence is revised to read as follows: 

"A director may change his election of payment terms by executing and delivering to Energy East a new payment terms election.  With respect to amounts the Director contributed to the Plan on or after January 1, 2007, any changes to the payment terms election must be made at least twelve (12) months prior to the date distributions are scheduled to commence and must provide payments will be delayed at least five (5) years from the date distributions were originally scheduled to commence. Changes to amounts the Director contributed to the Plan prior to January 1, 2005 are not subject to the five-year delay described in the preceding sentence.  Changes to amounts the Director contributed to the Plan during 2005 and 2006 are not subject to the five-year delay described in the preceding sentence as long as the change is made before January 1, 2007.  No change shall be effective during the one-year period beginning on the day the Director executes the new payment terms election.  If, during such one-year period, the Director becomes entitled to receive a payment or payments under the Plan pursuant to the Director's last effective payment terms election, said last effective payment terms election shall remain in full force and effect and the new election shall be null and void.  Only one payment terms election shall be effective for a Director at any time.  


 



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Energy East Corporation hereby executes this Amendment as of the 8th day of December  2005.


 

 


	 	
ENERGY EAST CORPORATION





	
 /s/Michelle Taylor                            

     Witness
	
By:  /s/Richard R. Benson                     

           Richard R. Benson

           Vice President and 

           Chief Administrative Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-53-000]

Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Great Lakes Gas Transport, LLC (GT), formerly Gas Transport, Inc., tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 143, with a proposed effective date of November 1, 2000.

GT states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply with Order No. 587-L issued June 30, 2000 in Docket No. RM96-1-014, which permits shippers to offset imbalances on different contracts held by the shipper and to trade imbalances. 

GT states that copies of this filing were served upon its customers and interested state commissions. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to protect said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.  All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations.   Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings.  Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.  Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.  This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27343  Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JT K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FL AV I O ESC OBEDO G OM EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73368 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 264- 217 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F l avi o E sc ob edo G om ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen b a s e do n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C.



# FI LED FEB 26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ T K / Res ea r ch 07- 73368 2 § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n, I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , and w e r e vi e w de novo due p r o c e s s c la im s , Ra m v . I NS , 243 F . 3d 510, 516 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng E s c obe do G om e z ’ s s e c ond m ot i on t o reopen as unt i m el y andnu m er i ca l l y barre d b ec ause i tw as fi l ed ov era y e ara f te rth e B I A ’s A u g u s t 2 , 2 0 0 5 , f in a l o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and equ i t ab l e t o l l i n g i s u n av ai l ab l e t o E sco b ed o G o m ez w h ere h e d i dn o test ab l i sh p r e ju d ic e f r o m th e a lle g e din e f

f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l, s e e I

tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F .3 da t 8 9 7 , 8 9 9 ; s e e a ls o L a ra T o rr es v . A s h c r o

ft , 38 3 F . 3d96 8, 97 3 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) , am ended b

y 4 0 4 F .3 d1 1 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( o r d e r ) ( c o u n s e l’s “u n f o rtu n ate im m ig r a tio n - law a d v ic e ” w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e b e c au s e it d idn o t “p e rta in to th e a c tu a l s ub s tan c e o f th e h e ar in g ” o r“c a ll th e h e ar in g ’s f a irn e s s in to qu e s tio n ” ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 10.23.1
 
SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.23.1


 


WASHINGTON GROUP RETENTION AGREEMENTS
WITH NAMED EXECUTIVES
 
EACH DATED AS OF MARCH 14, 2001
 
George H. Juetten
Thomas H. Zarges
 
 
DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 16, 2001
 
Stephen M. Johnson
 
NOTE:  Mr. Johnson’s Retention Agreement is identical in all materials terms to those entered into with Messrs Juetten and Zarges, with the exception that his Retention Bonus is prorated to allow for the time during early 2001 when he was not in the Company’s employ.  Mr. Johnson returned to the employ of the Company on November 12, 2001.
#### NAPIER v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 12, 1954.

*873James G. Begley, Danville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Geti., for appellee.

DUNCAN, Justice.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in local option territory and his punishment was fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for a period of sixty days. Reversal is sought upon a number of grounds, but since we have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to support a conviction, we shall discuss only that ground.

On the night of March 27, 1953, appellant’s restaurant in the city of Danville was searched by two police officers under authority of a search warrant. The officers stated that when they came to the door of the restaurant appellant stood in their way and when they said they wanted ■to look around he continued to block their entrance. They each stated that they observed a girl behind the counter pick up a kettle and pour its contents into a lard-can, which was used as a mop bucket or waste can. They testified that they were able to detect the odor of moonshine whiskey about the can, and it 'was subsequently taken to the chemistry department of Centre College where a chemical analysis was made of its contents.

Dr. John Walker, a chemistry "professor, testified that after a distillation process he found some traces of ethyl alcohol. He stated there were many other elements in the can but he did not try to determine their nature. He did not make a quantitative test and was unable to state how much alcohol the can contained. It was also shown that appellant’s reputation for dealing in intoxicating beverages was bad.

The Commonwealth has not positively identified any liquor found on the1 premises. Ethyl alcohol is not an exclusive property of liquor but is an element of many other products sold commercially throughout the country for admittedly legal' purposes and might very well be found in most any domestic or commercial establishment.

Under the provisions of KRS 242.390, the accused’s reputation for violation of a.local option statute is admissible against him, but we have repeatedly held that such evidence, standing alone, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. DeAttley v. Commonwealth, 310 Ky. 112, 220 S.W.2d 106. Evidence which produces no more than a suspicion of guilt will not support a verdict. Flynn v. Commonwealth, 314 Ky. 388, 235 S.W.2d 1004; Gross v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 366.

We think the lower court should have sustained appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.

The motion for an appeal is sustained and the judgment is .reversed.

CAM.MACK, J., dissenting.
exv10w9



 






EXHIBIT 10.9




I-FLOW CORPORATION




Summary of the

2006 Corporate Officer Incentive Plan




     Eligibility. The President and Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer are eligible to receive cash and equity
bonuses under the plan. All equity awards will be made pursuant to the I-Flow Corporation 2001
Equity Incentive Plan.



     Objectives. The compensation committee determined that it will evaluate the following
criteria to determine whether and to what extent the plan objectives have been achieved: (i) total
revenue and (ii) profitability.



     Administrative. The overall goal achievement percentage is the sum of (i) the
accomplishment percentage of each performance target times (ii) the weighting for each
objective. Thus, if one or more targets is exceeded, it is possible the overall goal achievement
percentage could be greater than 100%. All financial targets are considered to be plus or minus 1%
of the absolute number. In order to provide flexibility to management to operate and grow the
company, awards may be adjusted for any major events during the year; provided that, any adjustment
must be approved by the compensation committee and the board of directors. The allocation of the
aggregate awards among the officers will be determined by the compensation committee and the board
of directors based on their assessment of the contributions of each officer.



     Award Minimums/Maximums. In order to receive an award under the plan, a minimum
aggregate performance level of 85% must be achieved. All cash and equity bonuses are capped at a
maximum of 120% of the amounts that would be earned for an aggregate performance level of 100%. At
an overall goal achievement percentage of 100%, the cash bonus award for the three officers
combined is an aggregate of $1,575,000, and the equity bonus award for the three officers combined
is an aggregate of 100,000 shares of restricted stock. For amounts earned above or below the 100%
performance level, the exact amount will be determined on a straight-line basis. All equity awards
will be in the form of restricted stock granted pursuant to the I-Flow Corporation 2001 Equity
Incentive Plan.



     Vesting of Equity Awards. Equity awards will consist of grants of restricted stock.
The restrictions will lapse and the shares will vest 50% on the first anniversary of the grant date
and 50% on the second anniversary of the grant date.



     Payment of Awards. After completion of the fiscal year, the compensation committee
will review the plan objectives and results and the recommendations of executive management. The
board of directors will assess the performance of the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Operating
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and will, upon recommendation from the compensation
committee, approve the cash bonus awards and equity grants. Earned cash bonus awards are typically
paid each year in February. To be eligible for awards under the plan, all employees must be on the
Company’s payroll through the date of payment of the cash bonus.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00136-CV 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF TERRI F. ADAMS AND TERRY R. ADAMS 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2016-523,388, Honorable Mark Hocker, Presiding 

 

May 6, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant Terry R. Adams, appearing pro se, attempts to appeal (1) the trial court’s 

“Agreed Order on Motion to Enforce Agreed Final Decree of Divorce & Order Clarifying 

Final Decree of Divorce” and (2) the “Notice of Nonsuit of Motion to Enforce Protective 

Order” filed by appellee, Terri F. Adams. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The agreed order enforcing and clarifying the divorce decree was signed by the 

trial court in January 2019, but does not show the day of signing. Because Adams did 

not file any timely post-judgment motions that extended the notice of appeal deadline, his 

notice of appeal was due thirty days after the order was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(a). Assuming the trial court signed the order on the last day of January 2019, 

Adams’s notice of appeal was due, at the latest, by March 4, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P.
2

26.1, 4.1(a). This deadline could have been extended by fifteen days to March 19 had 

Adams filed his notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time by that date. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. See also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) 

(implying a motion for extension when an appellant tenders a notice of appeal within

fifteen days after the notice deadline). Adams did not file a notice of appeal until April 8, 

2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(b) (mailbox rule).

By letter of April 12, 2019, we notified Adams that his notice of appeal appeared 

to have been filed untimely and directed him to file a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Adams 

filed a response but failed to demonstrate grounds for continuing the appeal. A timelyfiled notice of appeal is required to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Because Adams’s notice of appeal 

was not timely filed, we must dismiss the appeal.

As for Adams’s appeal from the notice of nonsuit, our jurisdiction is dependent 

upon the existence of a final judgment or appealable order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 

1998) (per curiam). Because a notice of nonsuit is not a judgment or appealable order of 

the trial court, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(a).

Per Curiam
#### Jose SAMBRANO, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 22539.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

John T. Spann, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of wilfully resisting an officer in attempting to execute a lawful warrant for the arrest of another person in' a misdemeanor case, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $250.

Since his appeal was perfected, appellant has filed his application, duly verified, asking the privilege of withdrawing the same. The request is granted and the appeal ordered dismissed.
Exhibit
32.1


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 Quarterly Report of Renewal Fuels, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on August 15, 2008, as amended by this Form
10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the SEC on October
14, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Dated:
      October 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Bryan
      ChanceBryan
      ChanceChief
      Executive Officer and
              Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
    Officer)