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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,690
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,400
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    177,600
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        447,096
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,086
<DEPOSITS>                                     391,038
<SHORT-TERM>                                   203,291
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,594
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 666,086
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,339
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,490
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   102
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,391
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,854
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,828
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,103
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (361) 
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 182
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,796
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,790
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.77
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,251
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,795
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       67
<RECOVERIES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,795
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, Terry Prichard, is the Chief Financial Officer of Pocahontas
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).



This statement is
being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005 (the Report).



By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | C) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | D) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This statement is authorized to
be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|                  |  |                    
|----------------- |  | -------------------
|December 22, 2005 |  | /s/  Terry
Prichard
|Dated             |  | Terry Prichard
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00383-CV

In re Max Grossman §

§

§

§ Original Proceeding

From the 384th District Court

of El Paso County (2017-DCV-2528)

December 7, 2017

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered Relator Ma x Grossman’s petition for writ of

injunction. We grant Relato r’s petition. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

temporary injunction placed by the El Paso Court of Appeals and then clarified in

its second amended emerg ency order of September 12, 2017 shall remain in

effect during the pendency of the inte rlocutory appeal (02-17-00384-CV).

It is further ordered that Real Party in Interest the City of El Paso shall pay

all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Chief Just ice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000936448
<NAME> NUMBER NINE VISUAL TECH. CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                           9,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,426
<PP&E>                                           3,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,033
<SALES>                                         21,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,058
<CGS>                                           19,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,148)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,986)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.32)
        

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

No. 24912.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1950.

No attorneys on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for the consideration of this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
July 22, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 2059 RE: FAA- 2015 - 2018 - 0002 Request for Additional Information **Attachments** : (links provided as the files exceed maximum file size for this site) 1. Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide V 1.0 2. Phantom 3 Profess ional User Manual V1.2 **References** : FAA Exemption No. 11 452 , Regulatory Docket No. FAA
–2015
– 0233 in the matter of the petition of JASON YOUN PHOTOGRAPHY , LLC Dear Sir or Madam, Besides expanding on the reasons why my request for exemption will not adversely affect safety or how the exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to that pro vided by the rule fro m which I seek an exemption, I am also amend ing F AA- 2015 - 2018 - 0001 to add a DJI Phantom 3 in addition to my DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus. Historically, aerial photography and videography for newsgathering and for real estate ma rke t ing used manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters which carry volatile fuel. This presents a much higher risk to life and property than the small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS ) for which I seek this exemption. My sUAS do not present this level of risk due to th eir small size and light weight. P reviously approved FAA Exemption No. 11 452 , Regulatory Docket No. FAA
– 2015
– 0233 in the matter of the petition of JASON YOUN PHOTOGRAPHY , LLC received exemption s for DJI craft including the Phantom 2 Vision Plus
. M y reasons are very similar:

**FAA Modernization and Reform Act of**  **2012 (FMRA) Phantom 2 Vision Plus**  **Phantom 3 Weight**  Unmanned ai rcraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg). 4 3.81 Ounces (1242g) 45.15 ounces (1280g)
**Ai rspeed**  Maximum ai rspeed of 100 mph (87 knots). 29.16 knots (15m/s) 31.1 knots (16m/s)
I normally fly below 2 00 feet above ground level (AGL ). This is below the 400 foot AGL ceiling set by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). The only exception I request is fo r shooting W ind Energy projects which require 500’ AGL in order to provide clearance abovethe spinning blades while maintaining spacing below manned craft which are to fly at least

500’ above the highest obstacle. The sUAS batteries are far safer than the fuel necessary for manned aircraft or rotorcraft. They operate for less than 25 minutes per flight; the manufacturer provides numerous met hods to assure safety: 1. V isual and audible cues to battery level 2. DJI ’s fail - safe feature automatically climbs to programmed height, return s the sUAS to its point of origin then land s when battery power reaches a factory predetermined level
. I utilize my experience as a commercial pilot and airframe and powerplant mechanic when perform ing preflight inspections to ensure safety ; I always obtain all necessary perm issions prior to operation. All the above ensure that my sUAS provides a level of safety at least equal to that pro vided by the rule from which I seek an exemption, Respectfully s ubmitted 

# James M Finch DBA J Finch Photography
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michael Lamar Mellen, * From the 104th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 17952B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 11

- 00257

- CR * September 26, 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27999]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-81-000]


Cleco Evangeline, LLC; Notice of Filing

October 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 24, 2000, the entities listed in the 
caption above made compliance filings pursuant to 18 CFR 35.34(c) and 
the Commission's Order No. 2000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 Fed. 
Reg. 809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,089 (1999), order 
on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, 65 Fed. Reg. 12,088 (March 8, 2000), 
FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,092 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filings should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 
20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 
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. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 
1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27999 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries



     1.   Essex Portfolio, L.P., a California limited partnership
     2.   Essex Management Corporation, a California corporation
     3.   Essex-Palisades Facilitator, a California limited partnership
     4.   Essex Sunpointe Limited, a California limited partnership
     5.   Essex Washington Interest Partners, a California general partnership
     6.   Essex San Ramon Partners L.P., a California limited partnership
     7.   Essex Bristol Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership
     8.   Essex Fidelity I Corporation, a California corporation
     9.   Essex Camarillo Corporation, a California corporation
     10.  Essex Camarillo L.P., a California limited partnership
     11.  Essex Meadowood Corporation, a California corporation
     13.  Essex Meadowood, L.P., a California limited partnership
     12.  Essex Bunker Hill Corporation, a California corporation
     24.  Essex Bunker Hill, L.P., a California limited partnership
     14.  Essex Treetops Corporation, a California corporation
     15.  Essex Treetops, L.P., a California limited partnership
     16.  Essex Bluffs, L.P., a California limited partnership
     17.  Essex Huntington Breakers, L.P., a California limited partnership
     18.  Essex Stonehedge, L.P., a California limited partnership
     19.  Essex Bridle Trails, L.P., a California limited partnership
     20.  Essex Spring Lake, L.P., a California limited partnership
     21.  Essex Maple Leaf, L.P., a California limited partnership
     23.  Fountain Court Apartment Associates, L.P., a Washington limited
          partnership
     24.  Essex Fountain Court, LLC, a Washington limited liability company
     25.  Essex Inglenook Court, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
     26.  Essex Wandering Creek, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
     27.  Essex Fairways, LLC, a California limited liability company
     28.  Essex Columbus, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
     29.  Essex Lorraine, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
     30.  Essex Glenbrock, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
     31.  Essex Euclid, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
     32.  Essex Lorraine, Inc. a California corporation
     33.  Essex Columbus, Inc. a California corporation
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 7, 2019

No. 04-19-00722-CV

Eric LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

ROCKY CREEK PARTNERS, LLC.,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-13865

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due November 5, 2019. Appellant filed a docketing statement on 

October 28, 2019, stating he had requested a clerk’s record and made arrangements with the 

clerk to pay the fees for preparation and filing of the record. The record has not been filed. On 

November 6, the Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s 

record was not filed because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee 

to prepare the record and appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee. 

We order Eric Lopez to provide written proof to this court by November 18, 2019 that 

either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk have been made 

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record without prepayment of the 

clerk’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 35.3(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145. If appellant fails to file such 

proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of November, 2019.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
# **Exhibit 10.9**

 

 

EXTENSIONAGREEMENT

 

 

Bank of America, N.A.,

as Administrative Agent

231 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

The undersigned herebyagrees to extend, effective April 3, 2003, its Commitment and the Maturity Dateunder the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001, among SOURCECORP,Incorporated (formerly known as F.Y.I., Incorporated), each of the Lendersparty thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc ofAmerica Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and sole book agent (as the samehas been amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the “CreditAgreement”) for 364 days to April 1, 2006, pursuant to Section 2.1(d)of the Credit Agreement.  Terms definedin the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined.

 

This Extension Agreementshall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State ofTexas.  This Extension Agreement may besigned in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with thesame effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the sameinstrument.

 
| **BANK ONE,  N.A.** |
|---------------------|
|                |
| By:                 |   | /s/Alan L. Miller |
|                | Name: | Alan L. Miller |
|                | Title: | FVP |

 

 

Agreed and Accepted:

 
| SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED                        |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |
| By:                                             |   | /s/Barry L. Edwards |
| Name:                                           | Barry L. Edwards |
| Title:                                          | EVP & CFO |
|                                            |
| BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as  Administrative Agent |
|                                            |
| By:                                             |   | /s/Suzanne M. Paul |
| Name:                                           | Suzanne M. Paul |
| Title:                                          | Vice President |
|                                            |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1842

GREGORY G. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-433-3-MU)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory G. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Kaplan Weinberg, John

Barnwell Anderson, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

May 18, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on May 25, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the

order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective

date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806

F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory G. Williams appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v.

Federal Express Corporation, No. CA-97-433-3-MU (W.D.N.C. May 25,

1999).* 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
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 Annual Report of Warning Model Management, Inc.. (the Company) on Form 10KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Chamberlin, Director and Managing Member of WAMM
 of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Steve Chamberlin
 _____________________________
 Steve Chamberlin
 Director and Managing Member of WAMM
 April 13, 2004