alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.                     | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the      Company. |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                   |                                                                                                                                                                 |
| November      16, 2009 |                                                                                                                                                                 | /s/Ken Page      Ken      Page, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer, principal      financial and accounting officer |
DISMISS ; and Opinion Filed July 21, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00502
- CV TARGET CORPORATION , Appellant V. JOHN KO , Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 04853 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang

- Miers and Brown Opinion by Justice Brown Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sect ion 51.014(d) and Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3, Target Corporation has filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal. We may accept an interlocutory appeal if: (1) the order being appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which ther e is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2013 ). Target moved for summa ry judgment on the ground that it was not served with process until more than two months after the statute of limitations had run. John Ko responded that his counsel requested issuance of citation on the same date the petition was filed. H is counsel ackn owledged that a “clerical oversight resulted in a failure to calendar a follow

- up date to determine the status of counsel’s request for citation.” The trial court denied Target’s motion.– 2

– I n its petition for permissive appeal, Target contends the controlling question of law is whether attorney error in failing to timely serve a defendant constitutes a lack of due diligence as a matter of law. The law, however, is well settled that attorney error does not constitute due diligence as a matter of law

. See Parsons v. Turley , 109 S.W.3d 804 , 808

- 09 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2003, pet. denied). The fact that the trial court may have erred in not granting summary judgment is not a basis for a permissive appeal. See King

- A Corp. v. Wehling , No. 13

- 13

- 00100

- CV, 2013 WL 1092209 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi March 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (denying permission to appeal involving same issue). Accordingly, we conclude no substantial difference of opinion exists regarding the controlling question of law in this case, deny the petition, and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(d)(1); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

140502F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

TARGET CORPORATION, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 00502

- CV V. JOHN KO, Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 04853. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang

- Miers, participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee JOHN KO recover his costs of this appeal from appellant TARGET CORPORATION.
Judgment entered this 21st day of July, 2014.
Agenda – August 2010 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings Friday, July 30, 2010 

Dealer ___________________

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 5:00 PM on Monday, July 26, 

2010 to Debt.Management@do.treas.gov and Fabiola.Ravazzolo@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not 

scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

Low/High 

July – September / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

October – December / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

FY 2010 Total Marketable Borrowing / 

FY 2011 Total Marketable Borrowing / 

II. Budget Deficit Estimates 

FY 2010 / 

FY 2011 / 

FY 2012 / 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

3-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

10-year note (Aug) / 

10-year note reopening (Sep/Oct) / / - / 

30-year bond (Aug) / 

30-year bond reopening (Sep/Oct) / 

2-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

5-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

7-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

30-year TIPS reopening (Aug) / 

10-year TIPS reopening (Sep) 

5-year TIPS reopening (Oct) 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates

52-week bill size (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / / 

Total change in bills outstanding Aug ‘10 – Oct ‘10 / 

Total change in bills outstanding FY 2010 / 

CMB issuance Aug ‘10 – Oct ‘10 (size/date) / / / / 

Please provide your estimates in the format provided above with central estimates followed by low/high 

estimates for each. 

Discussion Topics

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for the remainder of FY2010 and 

FY2011. Do you believe the current financing schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s 

financing needs through the end of FY2011? 

2. Please comment on the drivers of the recent decline in Treasury yields. What are the sources of 

demand for longer-dated coupon-bearing securities and STRIPS? 

 

3. Please describe the market dynamics in the front-end of the yield curve. Comment on the 

ongoing demand for short-duration securities, as well as the supply of products that compete with 

Treasuries. Given your outlook on supply and demand, are there any changes Treasury should be 

considering to bill issuance? 
4. As part of Treasury’s ongoing commitment to the TIPS program, are there any changes Treasury 

could make to enhance auction demand and improve secondary market liquidity? Furthermore, 

are there calendar- or issuance-related changes Treasury should consider to the TIPS program?
Agenda –February 2011 Refunding

Treasury Dealer Meetings Friday, January 28, 2011

Dealer ___________________

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, January

24, 2011 to Debt.Management@do.treas.gov and Mark.Cabana@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not 

scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates

Central

Estimate

Range that would not 

surprise you

Low/High

January –March /

Ending Cash Balance /

April –June /

Ending Cash Balance /

FY 2011 Total Marketable Borrowing /

FY 2012 Total Marketable Borrowing /

II. Budget Deficit Estimates

FY 2011 /

FY 2012 /

FY 2013 /

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates

3-year note (Feb/Mar/Apr) / / / / - / /

10-year note (Feb) /

10-year note reopening (Mar/Apr) / / - /

30-year bond (Feb) /

30-year bond reopening (Mar/Apr) /

2-year note (Feb/Mar/Apr) / / / / - / /

5-year note (Feb/Mar/Apr) / / / / - / /

7-year note (Feb/Mar/Apr) / / / / - / /

30-year TIPS (Feb)

10-year TIPS reopening (Mar)

5-year TIPS (April)

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates

52-week bill size (Feb/Mar/Apr) / / / / - / /

Total change in bills outstanding Feb ‘11 –Apr ‘11 /

Total change in bills outstanding FY 2011 /

CMB issuance Feb ‘11 –Apr ‘11 (size/date) / / / /

Please provide your estimates in the format provided above with central estimates followed by low/high 

estimates for each.

Discussion Topics

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2011 and FY2012. Do you believe the 

current financing schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s financing needs though the end of FY2012? 

Please elaborate. 

2. On November 3, 2010, the Federal Reserve announced a plan to purchase $600 billion of Treasury 

securities by the end of the second quarter 2011 and continue reinvesting principal payments from its 

holdings of agency debt and agency MBS into Treasury securities. Please describe the impact of that 

program on Treasury market liquidity and dynamics.

3. Please comment on Treasury supply in the broader context of the outlook for U.S. fixed income supply 

in 2011.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JASON DUANE HEMPHILL, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:21-cv-1238-E (BT)

§

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et 

al., 

 Defendants.

§

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and 

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated June 

22, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are 

correct, and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

SO ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2022.

 

_____________________________________ 

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01238-E-BT Document 17 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 63
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Plaintiff

Defendant

v.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS 

(This form also satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e), LR 7.4, LR 81.1(a)(4)(D), and LR 81.2,

provides the following information:

 For a nongovernmental corporate party, the name(s) of its parent corporation and any 

publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock (if none, state "None"): 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

 A complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, 

guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are 

financially interested in the outcome of the case: 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

ALBINA A. MARTINEZ

6:22-cv-00027-H

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC

ALBINA A. MARTINEZ

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC

ALBINA A. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff 

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendant 

Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 6:22-cv-00027-H Document 3 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 11
Date:

Signature:

Print Name:

Telephone:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Bar Number:

Fax:

E-Mail:

NOTE: To electronically file this document, you will find the event in our Case Management (CM/ECF) system, under Civil/Other 

Documents/Certificate of Interested Persons

6/10/2022

/s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim

6302103

2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200

Lombard, IL 60148

(630) 575-8181

(630) 575-8188

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com

Case 6:22-cv-00027-H Document 3 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 12
JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME– Page 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RENICE TAYLOR, § 

 § Case No. 3:22-cv-01650-B 

Plaintiff, § 

§ JURY DEMAND

v. § 

§ 

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., § 

 § 

Defendant. § 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Counsel for Renice Taylor (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Sunbeam Products, Inc. 

(“Defendant”) hereby notify this Court they have reached a settlement in this matter. This 

settlement will resolve all pending claims associated with this action. 

The parties request this Court to vacate any future dates, and allow the parties 90 days. To 

finalize the agreement. This will allow the parties to finalize the settlement agreement and file their 

Joint Motion for Dismissal, as well obtain funds coming from overseas. 

Case 3:22-cv-01650-B Document 43 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 164
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT – Page 2 

Respectfully submitted, 

JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC

/s/ Adam J. Kress 

 Adam J. Kress, Esq. (#0397289) 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 

 (612) 436-1800 / (612) 436-1801 (fax) 

akress@johnsonbecker.com

CLARK │VON PLONSKI │ANDERSON

COLLEN A. CLARK

State Bar No. 04309100 

R. CONNOR BARBE

State Bar No. 241085 

3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1250 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

214-780-0500/214-780-0501 Fax 

eservice@cvpalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

Darby V. Doan 

Texas Bar No. 00793622 

Cole A. Riddell 

Texas Bar No. 24105423 

Haltom & Doan

6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100 

Texarkana, TX 75503 

Telephone: (903) 255-1000 

Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 

Email: ddoan@haltomdoan.com 

Email: criddell@haltomdoan.com 

Donald R. Ross 

Texas Bar No. 17286000 

Haltom & Doan

4417 Oak Knoll Dr. 

Plano, TX 75093 

Telephone: (903) 255-1000 

Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 

Email: dross@haltomdoan.com 

Case 3:22-cv-01650-B Document 43 Filed 09/21/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 165
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT – Page 3 

/s/ David O’Connell (with permission)

David J. O’Connell – 6199086 

(Pro Hac Vice to be filed)

Goldberg Segalla LLP 

222 West Adams Street, Suite 2250 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: (312) 572.8405 

Facsimile: (312) 572.8401 

Email: doconnell@goldbergsegalla.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of this 

document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on this the 21st day of September 2023. 

 /s/ Adam Kress 

 Adam J. Kress 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01650-B Document 43 Filed 09/21/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 166
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARTIN
INDUSTRIES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           1,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                       724
<INVENTORY>                                     13,099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,896
<PP&E>                                          27,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,789
<BONDS>                                          5,159
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,490
<SALES>                                         65,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,222
<CGS>                                           57,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    92
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (898)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,911)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,516)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,395)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.47)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-71-024]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of PBS Revenue 
Sharing Refund Report

November 15, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 9, 2000, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing a refund report showing 
that on October 25, 2000, Transco submitted PBS revenue sharing refunds 
(total principal and interest amount of $299,275.79) to all affected 
shippers in Docket Nos. RP97-71 and RP97-312.
    Transco states that Section 3.4 of Transco's Rate Schedule PBS1 
provides that during the effectiveness of the Docket No. RP97-71 rate 
period, which began on May 1, 1997, Transco shall refund annually 75% 
of the fixed cost component of all revenues collected associated with 
Rate Schedule PBS parking/borrowing charges to maximum rate firm 
transportation, maximum rate interruptible transportation and maximum 
rate firm storage Buyers (collectively, Eligible Shippers). Transco has 
calculated that the refund amount for the annual period from May 1, 
1999 through April 30, 2000 equals $299,275.79. Pursuant to Section 3.4 
of Rate Schedule PBS, Transco refunded that amount to Eligible Shippers 
based on each Eligible Shipper's actual fixed cost contribution as a 
percentage of the total fixed cost contribution of all such Eligible 
Shippers (exclusive of the fixed cost contribution pertaining to 
service purchased by Seller from third parties).
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before November 22, 2000. 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. 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). 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29701 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RAYMON CERVANTES, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1802-C (BH)

)

DALLAS COUNTY CIU UNIT, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the plaintiff’s request to recuse the assigned

U.S. Magistrate Judge, filed on June 28, 2023 (doc. 31), is DENIED.

A judge is required to stand recused “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “As the goal of § 455(a) ‘is to exact the appearance

of impartiality,’ recusal may be mandated even though no actual partiality exists.” United States v.

Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hall v. Small Business Admin., 695 F.2d

175, 178 (5th Cir. 1983)). To merit recusal, the movant “must show that, if a reasonable man knew

of all the circumstances, he would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” Chitimacha Tribe

of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982). Adverse rulings do not render the

judge biased, however. Matter of Hipp, Inc., 5 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 1993). “[J]udicial rulings

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . [T]hey . . . can only in

the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no

extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for

recusal.” Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

1

 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management.

Case 3:22-cv-01802-S-BH Document 33 Filed 07/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 395
Here, although the plaintiff alleges bias, he relies only on the alleged merit of his claims and

speculation. He does not cite any relevant, extrajudicial information that would cause a reasonable

person, knowing all the circumstances, to question the impartiality of the assigned magistrate judge. 

The motion appears to be based on adverse rulings. As noted, adverse rulings do not render a judge

biased. Moreover, the assigned district judge has retained the ultimate decision-making authority

for this case despite the referral to a magistrate judge for case management. The recommendations

for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims contain a notice of right to appeal and object, he has filed his

objections to the recommendations, and the objections remain pending before the assigned district

judge. (See docs. 23, 25, 27, 29.) 

Because it presents no valid grounds for recusal, the motion for recusal is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2023.

_/s/ Irma Carrillo Ramirez___________

IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01802-S-BH Document 33 Filed 07/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 396
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 4(c)

                                AMENDMENT TO THE
             POTTERS SAVINGS AND LOAN 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

This Amendment is hereby made effective January 1, 1999 by and between First
Bankers Trust, hereinafter referred to as the "Trustees" and The Potters Savings
and Loan Company, hereinafter referred to as the "Employer".

EMPLOYER INFORMATION
--------------------

B1       Name of Employer           Potters Bank

Articles VI, Section 6.4(b):
----------------------------

D6       VESTING OF PARTICIPANT'S INTEREST  (Plan Section 6.4(b))

         The vesting schedule, based on number of Years of Service, shall be as
follows:

         d.       (X)      0 year           0%
                           1 years          20%
                           2 years          40%
                           3 years          60%
                           4 years          80%
                           5 years          100%

Signed in the presence of:

                                            Potters Bank


/s/ Stephen A. Beadnell                     /s/ Edward L. Baumgardner
------------------------------------        -------------------------
(SIGNATURE OF WITNESS)                      (SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYER)


/s/ Deborah J. Staff                        /s/ Carmen Walch, Trust Officer
------------------------------------        -------------------------------
(SIGNATURE OF WITNESS)                      (SIGNATURE OF TRUSTEE)

May 3, 1999 (date signed)
-----------

                                      -6-