alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1358

Lower Tribunal No. 2019-CF-015447-B-O

_____________________________

EDWARD HIDALGO TOHORTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Tanya Davis Wilson, Judge.

May 7, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOZNIAK, MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

Marc Anthony Consalo, of The Consalo Law Firm, Orlando, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Chance, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
David,

This email provides data on anode coke sulfur content for Alcoa 

Wenatchee.

Wenatchee limits anode coke sulfur content to 3% sulfur or below 

based on a monthly average. However, the sulfur content of coke 

received in individual rail cars varies widely (low and high 

sulfur values), to provide a blend of coke that meets the 

monthly 3% sulfur average.

Specific answers to your questions are provided below:

1) The average sulfur content of coke utilized to make anodes 

over the last year of operation ranged from 2.33% to 2.76%. The 

coke utilized to make anodes was a "blend" of individual rail 

car shipments that had sulfur contents ranging from 

approximately 2.06% to 3.19% sulfur. (See attached spreadsheet 

with two tabs: "Railcar Shipments" and "Monthly

Average".)

2) The highest monthly average sulfur content in the coke 

utilized to make anodes during the last 10 years was 2.93%. The 

highest sulfur content of an individual rail car shipment was 

3.37%.

3) Given concerns about the future availability of low sulfur 

coke, Alcoa believes that the lowest sulfur content anode coke 

that will be available in sufficient quantities to operate 

Wenatchee at capacity long term is 3% sulfur. This 3% sulfur 

coke will be a blend of low and high sulfur material.

Mike

Michael Palazzolo

Alcoa, Inc.

201 Isabella Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858

Ph: 412-553-4832

(See attached file: Wenatchee Coke S Data.xlsx)
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 17, 2007
 ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY INC.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    001-02199
(Commission File
Number)
    
    39-0126090
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 5075 Westheimer 
Suite 890
Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77056
(Zip Code)
 713) 369-0550
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 5.02.      Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
    Item 9.01.      Financial Statements and Exhibits.
  ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release, dated April 19, 2007.




---



##### 



ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY INC.Date:  April 19, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Theodore F. Pound IIIName:
    Theodore F. Pound IIITitle:
    General Counsel and Secretary




---



##### 



ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release, dated April 19, 2007.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andManagement of

Prudential Asset Resources,Inc.:

 

We have examined management'sassertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance withApplicable Servicing Criteria, that Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for theCommercial Mortgage-Backed Security Transactions - RegAB Portfolio (the"Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i) (C) & (D), 1122(d)(3)(ii),1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company hasdetermined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect tothe Platform. Exhibit C to management's assertion identifies the individualasset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constitutingthe Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with theservicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management'sassertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management'sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 22, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,300 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017*

*T: (646) 471 3000, F: (646)471 8320, www.pwc.com/us*

* *
##### 



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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Gary L. Whitlock
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4418

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Party in Interest - Appellee,

versus

RANDY LEE HAMMITT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-14; BK-02-32597; CR-04-142)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Lee Hammitt, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Rehearing granted and appeal dismissed, February 2, 2005
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy Lee Hammitt appeals the district court’s order for

criminal contempt for failure to comply with court issued subpoenas

in an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Hammitt, No. CA-03-14 (W.D.N.C. May 27, 2004). 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 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anchor Funding Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Morry Rubin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.





By:
/s/ MORRY F. RUBINMorry F. RubinChief Executive OfficerNovember 15, 2010
#### INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. O’NEAL et al.

No. 3716.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

June 30, 1938.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1938.

*941McNees & Roberts, of Dallas, for appellant.

Mayo W. Neyland, of Greenville, for appellees.

HIGGINS, Justice

(after stating the case as above).

The undisputed evidence as reflected hy the foregoing statement shows there was no agreement by the appellant to accept the payment of 331⁄8- per cent of its claim in satisfaction of its demand. The evidence conclusively rebuts the view that there was a composition agreement made by the appellant. Appellees do not contend that such an agreement was made by appellant, but in support of the judgment submit two propositions. Briefly stated, they are to the effect, first, that since appellees were insolvent, which fact was known to appellant, and the appellees contemplated going into bankruptcy, of which the appellant was advised, and the appel-lees forbore going into bankruptcy, there is a sufficient consideration to support an agreement on the part of appellant to accept the payment made in satisfaction of its entire demand; second, Zuber & Zu-ber were appellees’ special agents with limited authority and acted without authority in making the payment to the appellant without an agreement on the part of the latter to accept the same in full satisfaction of its demand.

The first proposition of the appellees is irrelevant because the evidence raises no issue of an agreement on the part of the appellant to accept the partial payment in full settlement of its demand.

As to the second proposition, appellant is not suing to recover upon any contract made by Zuber & Zuber which the latter were not authorized to make. Appellant is suing upon the original contract of sale. Conceding the materiality of the authority of Zuber & Zuber, the second proposition affords no ground of affirmance. Zuber & Zuber were employed by the appellees to negotiate with their creditors. They delivered the cashier’s check to the attorney for the appellant under an agreement simply that appellant would not sue to enjoin the proposed .sale of the stock of goods in bulk. In so doing Zuber ’& Zuber acted within the apparent scope of their authority and any secret limitation upon their authority is not binding upon appellant. The evidence is insufficient to charge appellant with notice, actual or constructive, of the want of authority on the part of Zuber & Zuber to make the agreement with it that they did make in appellees’ behalf.

The trial court held appellant was estop-ped to deny that the payment to. it was in full satisfaction of its claim. The evidence raises no issue of an estoppel against the appellant.

The judgment is reversed and judgment here rendered in favor of the appellant for $758^72, with interest from January 1, 1934 at the rate of 6 per. cent per annum.

Reversed and rendered.
# C_2023258EN.01000901.xml

| 21.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/9

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.108327

(2023/C 258/08)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 10.7.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.108327 |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | Romania |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Susţinerea activităţii crescătorilor din sectorul bovin, în anul 2022, în contextul crizei provocate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva (modificări la SA.105163 (2023/N)) |
| Legal basis | Legea nr. 110/2023 pentru aprobarea Ordonanţei de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 3/2023 privind instituirea unei scheme de ajutor de stat pentru susţinerea activităţii crescătorilor din sectorul bovin, în anul 2022, în contextul crizei provocate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Raising of dairy cattle |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale |
| Blvd. Carol I; nr. 2-4; Sector 3; București |

Date of adoption of the decision

10.7.2023

Aid number

SA.108327

Member State

Romania

Region

Romania

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Susţinerea activităţii crescătorilor din sectorul bovin, în anul 2022, în contextul crizei provocate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva (modificări la SA.105163 (2023/N))

Legal basis

Legea nr. 110/2023 pentru aprobarea Ordonanţei de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 3/2023 privind instituirea unei scheme de ajutor de stat pentru susţinerea activităţii crescătorilor din sectorul bovin, în anul 2022, în contextul crizei provocate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Raising of dairy cattle

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale

Blvd. Carol I; nr. 2-4; Sector 3; București

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
#### GIBBONS v. McROBERTS.

No. 4152.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

March 23, 1932.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1932.

*734Jones & Jones, of Mineóla, for appellant.

A. L. Robbins, of Clarksville, and R. T. Bailey, of Dallas, for appellee.

WILBSON, C. J.

(after stating the case as above).

As noted in the statement above, the parties agreed the question made by appellant’s “plea of privilege,” and appellee’s answer thereto, might be tried with the main suit. One of the two contentions presented by assignments in appellant’s brief is that, said question having been so tried and the cause having been submitted to the jury on special issues, it was error in the trial court to overrule the plea of privilege in the absence, as was the case, of a finding by the jury that appellant had committed actionable fraud in Red River county. It conclusively appeared in the evidence that all the acts and omissions charged against appellant occurred in Red River county. That being true, we think it is plain the assignment should be overruled. It was not necessary the jury should have found a fact conclusively established as existent by the evidence. The question as to whether said acts and omissions charged against appellant constituted actionable fraud or not is not presented by the assignment nor the proposition under it, and appellant therefore is not entitled to have it determined here. It has been said that “all grounds (quoting) or reasons for attack are waived by failure to assign error, and any and all grounds of error germane to the assignment are waived if not urged in the proposition.” Speer’s Law of Special Issues in Texas, § 556, p. 705.

The other one of the two contentions is presented by an assignment of error as follows: “It was error for the trial court to submit to the jury, a mixed question of law and fact as he did in special issue No. 1, wherein he submitted to the jury the question of whether or not appellant acted as the agent of'appellee in the negotiations and purchase of the stock in the Gi6bons Manufacturing Company owned by John J. Wade.” We think the issue was not objectionable on the ground urged in the assignment and proposition under same. And appellant in his argument thereunder seems to have adopted that view of the matter/for the entire argument is devoted to an éffort to show that the court’s definition of the word “agent,” given in connection with the issue was erroneous.

Neither of the two assignments and propositions under same in appellant’s brief showing error entitling appellant to have the judgment disturbed, it is affirmed.
LINE
OF CREDIT PROMISSORY NOTE




LINE
      OF CREDIT $350,000
              Date:
      September 15, 2010




FOR VALUE RECEIVED,Iveda Solutions, ("Borrower")
promises to pay to the order of Gregory Omi ("Lender"), the principal sum of up
to Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000), or so much thereof as may be
disbursed to, or for the benefit of the Borrower by Lender. It is the intent of
the Borrower and Lender hereunder to create a line of credit agreement between
Borrower and Lender whereby Borrower may borrow up to $350,000 from Lender. The
Borrower agrees that available line of credit is for the sole purpose of
purchasing equipment, software, and other infrastructure-related items to
fulfill commitment to SAT Mexico (“Customer’).




SECURITY: This Note shall be
secured by receivables from the Customer.




INTEREST & PRINCIPAL:The
unpaid principal of this line of credit shall bear simple interest at the rate
of 1.5 % per month or 18% per annum. Interest shall be calculated based on
the principal balance as may be adjusted from time to time to reflect additional
advances made hereunder. Interest on the unpaid balance of this Note shall
accrue monthly but shall not be due and payable until such time as when the
principal balance of this Note becomes due and payable, predicated by payment
from Customer, but no later than six months after each disbursement. There shall
be no penalty for early repayment of all or any part of the
principal.




DEFAULT: The Borrower shall be
in default of this Note on the occurrence of any of the following events: (i)
the Borrower shall fail to meet its obligation to make the required principal or
interest payments hereunder. (ii) the Borrower shall be dissolved or liquidated;
(iii) the Borrower shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or
shall be unable to, or shall admit in writing their inability to pay their debts
as they become due; (iv) the Borrower shall commence any case, proceeding, or
other action under any existing or future law of any jurisdiction relating to
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, or any such action
shall be commenced against the undersigned; (v) the Borrower shall suffer a
receiver to be appointed for it or for any of its property or shall suffer a
garnishment, attachment, levy or execution.




REMEDIES:Upon default of this Note,
Lender may declare the entire amount due and owing hereunder to be immediately
due and payable. Lender may also use all remedies in law and in equity to
enforce and collect the amount owed under this Note.This Note shall be
governed by the laws of Arizona, USA.




Borrower
hereby waives demand, presentment, notice of dishonor, diligence in collecting,
grace and notice of protest.




BORROWER:
                  
                  LENDER:David
      Ly
                  
                  Gregory
      Omi
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 June 20, 2007
 UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION PARTNERS, L.P.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    001-33078
(Commission
File Number)
    
    22-3935108
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 4444 Brittmoore Road Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77041
(Zip Code)
 (713) 335-7000
 N/A
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 8.01 Other Events.
  Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
  Exhibit No.
    
    Exhibit99.1
    
    Press release of Universal Compression Partners, L.P. dated June 20, 2007.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION PARTNERS, L.P.By:
    
    UCO General Partner, LP, its general partnerBy:
    
    UCO GP, LLC, its general partner(Registrant)Date: June 20, 2007By:
    
    /s/ DANIEL K. SCHLANGERDaniel K. SchlangerSenior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit No.
    
    Exhibit99.1
    
    Press release of Universal Compression Partners, L.P. dated June 20, 2007.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 345 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-691, CP2024-700.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22616 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P