alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Skip Jansen [mailto:skip@jijcorp.com] 

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:44 PM 

To: O'toole, catherine (OST) 

Subject: RE: Rugby application -last question (hopefully) 

Katie, 

OST- 2.009 -- Dl00 

As discussed with you over the phone this morning the $112,783 in cash shown on Our 

11/30/09 statement includes the $100,000 in Frontier Bank. Based upon your letter of 

November 17th we increased the $100,000 to $120,000 to be set aside as working 

capital. 

Your other question related to pre-operating expenses. Since we purchased an on-going 

operation we didn't really incur any pre-operating expenses. 

Any costs related to upgrading the certificate were absorbed and paid for during the ongoing operations. 

I hope this clears things up. 

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. 

Thanks, 

Skip 

From: catherine.O'toole@dot.gov [mailto:Catherine.O'toole@dot.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:32 AM 

To: Skip Jansen 

Subject: RE: Rugby application -last question (hopefully) 

I also wanted to make sure I was not double counting the amount of cash that Rugby indicates it 

has. 

The latest balance sheet Rugby submitted (dated Sept 30,2009) shows approximately $112,783 

in cash. There is also a document from Frontier Bank dated Nov 25,2009, that shows that 

Rugby has $120,000 available in its bank balance. 

It is not readily clear to me that these amounts are separate amounts, so I was hoping you can 

confirm this. 

Give me a call if you want to discuss. 202-366-9998 

Katy 

From: O'toole, catherine (OST) 

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:57 AM 

To: 'Skip Jansen' 

Subject: RE: Rugby application 

HI Skip 

I am writing to ask you a question regarding any pre-operating expenses you may have incurred 

with the FAA side of things while you are upgrading from being an air taxi to becoming a 

commuter. 
Has there been any costs involved with the upgrade? These would count as pre-operating costs, 

and if you have already paid them, we would need to know that, too. 

While your application states there are no costs, I just wanted to confirm that. 

Thanks -

Katy 

Katy O'Toole 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56) 

phone: 202.366.9998 

fax: 202.366.7638 

Catherine.OT oole@dot.gov
#### Forrest Eugene BADOUSEK, appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, appellee.

No. 23888.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

Davidson, Judge.

The appellant moves to withdraw the appeal in this case, and has filed his personal affidavit evidencing that fact.

The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10137 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER CROCKETT, also known as Charles Wright, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(CR-195-2)

- - - - - - - - - - May 10, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Christopher Crockett’ s mother, Patricia Bonner, seeks to appeal his convictions for robbery and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. Crockett’s appointed counsel, Robert R. Smith, seeks to withdraw as Crockett’s
counsel.

We are required to determine, sua sponte , whether we have appellate jurisdiction. M osley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). The notice of appeal filed and signed by Crockett’s2

mother is not an effective notice of appeal. The notice of appeal

must be signed by the party or his attor ney, and nonlawyers who
have not obtained nex t friend status are not authorized to represent others or sign their pleadings. See Gonzales v. Wyatt , 157 F.3d 1016, 1020-22 (5th Cir. 1998); Carter v. Stalder , 60 F.3d 238, 239 (5th Cir. 1995).
Crockett’s appeal is dismissed for la ck of appellate jurisdiction. As such counsel’s responsibilities to Crockett are over, so counsel’s motion to withdraw is

DENIED AS MOOT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10(e)-5


                             [KN ENERGY LETTERHEAD]

July 13, 1998

MOBILE GAS SERVICE CORP.
ATTN: HARRIS OSWALT
2828 DAUPHIN STREET
MOBILE AL 36606

Re:      Assignment of MidCon Gas Services Contract dated 04/01/1997
         to K N Marketing, L.P.

Ladies/Gentlemen:

         As a result of the acquisition of MidCon Corp. and its subsidiaries by
KN Energy, Inc. on January 30, 1998, this notice is to inform you that the above
listed contract(s) between MidCon Gas Services Corp. (Seller) and your company
(Buyer) is now being assigned from Midcon Gas Services Corp. to K N Marketing,
L.P. effective July 1, 1998.

         The parties responsible in the Notices and Payment sections also change
as a result of the acquisition. Therefore, please direct further Notice and
Payment information to the following parties under the contracts:

Please direct all correspondence and/or notices applicable therein to the
following address:

                           K N MARKETING, L.P. 
                           One Allen Center 
                           500 Dallas Street, Suite 500 
                           Houston, Texas 77002 
                           Attention: Contract Administration

Please direct all ACH and wire payment transactions to:

                           K N MARKETING, L.P.
                           The Chase Manhattan Bank 
                           New York, NY
                           Account No. 323-076947 
                           ABA No. 021000021

Payments by check should be mailed to:

                           K N MARKETING, L.P. 
                           Post Office Box 730563 
                           Dallas, Texas 75373-0563

Please indicate your consent by signing in the space below. Please direct any
questions to Contract Administration at (713) 963-3394. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.

                                                        Sincerely,

                                                        KN MARKETING, L.P.

                                                        /s/ DOUGLAS N. SCHANTZ
                                                        
                                                        Douglas N. Schantz
                                                        Executive Vice President

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
this 20th day of July, 1998

By:   /s/ HARRIS OSWALT
      ------------------------
Name:   Harris Oswalt
      ------------------------
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Brian R. Ervine, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 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 Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

| | /s/BRIAN R. ERVINEBrian R. Ervine Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerMarch 22, 2003 |  | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
exv10w23



 






Exhibit 10.23



Tommy L. Andrews, John B. (Jack) Benton, Laura Jo De Cespedes, Kathleen Flanagan, George W.
Gresham, Rahul Gupta, Kay J. Nichols, Larence Park and Kevin L. Reager have entered into Transition
Assistance Agreements that are substantially identical in all respects to the Agreement with Clyde
L. Thomas filed as Exhibit 10.34 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002.
Exhibit 10.2


2006 Short-Term Cash Incentive Plan


 


Subject to the
achievement of certain revenue, EBITDA and strategic goals for 2006, the
following sets forth the target cash bonus awards for each of the Company’s
executive officers.


 


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Target Payout as a Percentage of Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Caren
  L. Mason

  President and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  50%

  	
   

  
	
  Mark
  E. Paiz 

  Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
  40%

  	
   

  
	
  Paul
  E. Landers 

  Senior Vice President, 

  Finance & Administration, 

  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

  	
   

  	
  40%

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas
  J. Foley 

  Chief Technology Officer

  	
   

  	
  40%

  	
   

  
	
  Robert
  J. Bujarski 

  Vice President and General Counsel

  	
   

  	
  30%
**NOTE**

**DATE:** March 5, 2012 **TO:** Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0660 **FROM:** Mary

Johnson **SUBJECT:** Summary

of July 13, 2011 Meeting with Small Entities Standards of Performance for G HG Emissions for New Stationary Sources: E GUs: Proposed Rule The EPA’s outreach t o small entities regarded planned actions for new and existing sources, but only new sources would be affected b y th e currently proposed action. At that time, the EPA believed it likely

that proposed regulations for greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions from ele ctric utility generating units ( EGUs ) (new sources as well as existing sources) would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SI SNOSE) . However , because the EPA believes that outreach to small entities is an important element in the development of the se regulations , the EPA requested that a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel be convened to allow that outreach to occur. It has since been determined that new source performance standards (NSPS) for emis sions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) for new affected fossil

- fuel

- fired EGUs will be proposed at this time. At a future date, the EPA intends to promulgate emission guidelines for states to develop plans reducing CO 2 emissions from existing fossil

- fuel

- fired EGU s. **Summary of July 13, 2011 Meeting with Small Entities** A second outreach meeting was held with small entity representatives on July

13, 2011. Representatives from nine small entities and three organizations participat ing as viewers/technical backup part icipated in the meeting

. When conducted, this meeting with small entity representatives was referred to as the second SBAR Panel Outreach Meeting. Topics suggested b y small entity representatives and other non

- small entity participants were accommodated during this meeting. A list of meeting participants and copies of materials provided b y the industry representatives are attached to this note. The following s mall entity representatives

- suggested issues were presented by small entity representatives : 1. Lim ited use boilers with limited opportunities for efficient improvements due to NSR complications for conventional pollutants (even though they believe that the pollution control exclusion applies in the context of NSPS). 2. Variances per kwH and heat rates ove r monthly and annual operations (six real world case studies b y utilities) 3. A ge of plant is significant in setting an y NSPS for CO 2 4. Legal issues on NSPS for CO 2 5. K nowing the end game on biomass is critical before proposing NSPS for EPA and utilities6. Municipal government electric utilities are different from other utilities. (Examples: the business model is based upon cost

- effective decisions that integrate wastewater treatment waste combustion, etc.; waste heat for snow melt and community energy plan provid es high temperature for high temperature water in buildings to reduce CO 2 used from heating of water, etc.) Attachments
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, versus SAMUEL EDMOND COFFEY, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-97-121, CA-98-748) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Edmond Coffey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Coffey, a federal inmate, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). The court dismissed Coffey’s motion without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the RulesGoverning § 2255 Proceedings. Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).Because we find that a transcript is not necessary, we deny Coffey’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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
Exhibit 23.0



                         Consent of Independent Auditors





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Forms S-3 (No. 333-84353, No. 333-92247, No. 333-34246, No. 333-43212 and No.
333-43902) and in the related Prospectus and Forms S-8 (No. 333-85827, No.
333-84013, No. 333-77427, No. 333-38816 and No. 333-42066) pertaining to the
Stock Option Plans, of FrontLine Capital Group, of our report dated March 13,
2002, except for Note 17, as to which the date is April 10, 2002, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of FrontLine Capital Group, included in
this Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




New York, New York
April 10, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  SCHEDULE II

               EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                           (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                          ADDITIONS                    SUBTRACTIONS
                                                  --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                  PROVISIONS        FROM                        ACCOUNTS
                                    BALANCE AT    FOR LOSSES     ACQUISITION                     WRITTEN       BALANCE
                                    BEGINNING     ON ACCOUNTS        OR            FROM        OFF NET OF      AT END
YEAR ENDED                          OF PERIOD     RECEIVABLE     DIVESTITURE    DIVESTITURE    RECOVERIES     OF PERIOD
----------                          ----------    -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------    ---------
<S>                                 <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
December 31, 2001...............      16,329         8,945          3,515            --          14,212        14,577
December 31, 2002...............      14,577        10,937             --            --          16,205         9,309
December 31, 2003...............       9,309        11,038             --            --           8,655        11,692
</Table>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001051885
<NAME>    SCOVILL FASTENERS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,722
<INVENTORY>                                     18,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,770
<PP&E>                                          60,746
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,583
<BONDS>                                        149,019
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,453
<SALES>                                         89,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,190
<CGS>                                           69,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   921
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,091)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,089)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (28,002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28,002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
July 26, 2016



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FREDERICK L. NICHOLA S , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00403

- CV V.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM S (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED, BRIAN G. COOK, REIF WINERY IN C. (C.O.B. AS REIF E STATE WINERY), KLAUS

REIF AND RE/DEFINING WATER INC. , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an ap peal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Environmental Systems (International) Limited, Brian G. Cook, Reif Winery Inc. (c.o.b. as Reif Estate Winery), Klaus Reif and Re/Defining Water Inc., signed February 4, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Frederick L. Nicholas, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,291,303
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,999,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (404,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,133,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               805,151
<PP&E>                                      10,911,288
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,159,801)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,486,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,399,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       522,359
<OTHER-SE>                                   (191,271)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,486,604
<SALES>                                    122,991,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           122,991,788
<CGS>                                       85,281,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,078,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,936,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,195,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,976,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                   790,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,185,813
<DISCONTINUED>                               (467,392)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   718,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 1451 LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 001050

- A

_____________________________
S HANE R OGER S S IMMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County

. Joel D. Fritton , Judge

. Shane Roger s Simms, East Palatka, pro se.

A shley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

November 28, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
J AY , E ISNAUGLE , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00295

- CR

Joshua CASAREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4739

Honorab le Jefferson Moore , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time, Appellant’s brief was

due on November 21, 2022. On the due date, Appellant filed a motion for a thirty

- day extension

of time to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due on December 21, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court