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

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3,594,355
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              163,142
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    675,813
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      39,376,161
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            3,527,879
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              3,506,924
<LOANS>                                          48,238,040
<ALLOWANCE>                                         342,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  100,563,728
<DEPOSITS>                                       76,334,441
<SHORT-TERM>                                      3,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1,056,536
<LONG-TERM>                                      11,950,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                          1,314,758
<OTHER-SE>                                        6,907,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  100,563,728
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3,910,135
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2,672,538
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    125,019
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6,707,692
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2,827,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3,524,117
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3,183,575
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      (104,500)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   (6,125)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2,968,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     775,494
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          775,494
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        499,320
<EPS-BASIC>                                            3.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          3.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                         7.54
<LOANS-NON>                                       1,755,011
<LOANS-PAST>                                              0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                          0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                           0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    310,157
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        84,401
<RECOVERIES>                                        220,900
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   342,156
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                342,156
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                   0


</TABLE>
<pre>

EXHIBIT 10.7  2000 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF ROBERT A. SPIGNO

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective the 27th day of
March 2000, by and between Conectisys, Inc., a Colorado corporation
("CONECTISYS"), ("Employer"), and Robert A. Spigno ("Employee").

The following amendments to the language of the terms noted are hereby amended
as follows:

The amendments are effective March 27, 2000:

I.Employment and term. Employer hereby employs Employee and Employee hereby
accepts employment from Employer to perform the duties set forth below, for a
term of Five (5) years ending April 1, 2005.

II.Compensation.  Employee shall have an option to purchase up to 2,000,000
shares of Conectisys Corporation restricted stock under rule 144, at a cost of
$.3864 per share. This option shall remain open/exercisable until December 2,
2000. Said Option is renewable by Mr. Spigno for an additional three (3) years.
This is the total extent and number of options granted under this Employment
Agreement and this amendment shall supercede all previous amendments as it
pertains to stock options.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed as of the day and year first above written.


Employee:___________________________________
         Robert A. Spigno


Employer:___________________________________
         Lawrence Muirhead
         Conectisys Corp.
         Chief Technical Officer


Employer:___________________________________
         Patricia A. Spigno
         Conectisys Corp.
         Secretary-Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                 OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Fantatech, Inc. (the
"Company")  for  the  quarterly  period  ended  March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"),
the  undersigned,  in  the  capacity  and  on  the  date indicated below, hereby
certifies,  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 his knowledge:

(1)  The  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  May 14, 2007                     By: /s/ ZIBO NIU
                                            --------------------------
                                            Zibo Niu
                                            Chief Executive Officer


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required  by  Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by  the  Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 3, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00413

- CV

THE CITY OF LAREDO and City of Laredo Municipal Civil S ervice Commission,

Appellants

v.

Tony H. MORENO,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- CVK

- 001767D1

Honorable Joe Lopez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief filed by December 1, 2021

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of December, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Camden Learning
Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended August 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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)
            To
      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company, for the period covered by this
  report.




DATE:
      October 9, 2009
            /s/
      David L. WarnockDavid
      L. WarnockPrincipal
      Executive Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Camden Learning Corporation and will be retained by Camden Learning
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### W. R. PERRY v. J. D. WHITAKER.

*Practice*— Appeal— *Writ of Beeordari.*

No appeal lies from the refusal of the Court below to grant amotion to'' dismiss a petition for a writ of *recordari.*An appeal lies from ther. order of the Court either granting or refusing to grant such writ.

*(Collins*v. *Collins,*65 N. C. 135; *Cardwell*v. *Cardwell,*64 N. 0. 621, cited .and approved.)

*103.P.btitioN for a Writ of Recorclari beard at- Spring Term;, 1877, of Wake Superior Court, before Buxton, *J. ■*

In an action heretofore had before a Justice of the Peace., in which J. D. Whitaker was plaintiff and tí. W. Perry and W. R. Perry were defendants, a judgment was rendered for plaintiff on the 21st of December, 1875. .'The plaintiff says; in his petition that he has a good defence to the notes upon which said judgment was rendered. The defendant moved to dismiss the petition. His Honor overruled the motion and ordered the defendant to answer. The defendant accordingly filed an answer, and also appealed from the judgment-of the Court in refusing to dismiss the petition.

*Messrs.*A. *M. Lewis*and *J. LI.*Flemming, for plaintiff.'.

*Mr. Walter Clark,*for defendant.

Bynum, J.

This is a petition for a writ of *recordari.*An appeal .lies from an order of the Judge either granting or refusing to grant the writ, but no appeal lies where the Judge has done neither the one nor the other, which is orn-ease. When the plaintiff filed his petition, the defendant moved to dismiss it, and upon the refusal of the Judge to dismiss he appealed to this Court. A refusal' to dismiss at that stage of the case was by no means the same as or equivalent to granting the writ. Before final action the Judge desired, and it was his duty, to ascertain the facts; hence he ordered the defendant to answer the allegations of the petition. The defendant did answer, notwithstanding his appeal, denying many of the allegations of the petition and thus raising questions of fact for the decision of the Court. But without awaiting the finding of the Judge upon these issues or any judgment granting or refusing the writ, and without predicating any motion, upon the petition and answer, the defendant prosecuted and relied upon his'previous appeal. The appeal was precipitate and from no appealable *104order or judgment. Whether a writ of *recordad*ought to have been issued depends upon the facts. No facts are found by I-Iis Honor and *we*cannot therefore see whether he ought or ought not to have issued the writ . But owiüg to the hasty appeal, His Honor was prevented from either finding the facts or giving a judgment granting or refusing the *Tecordari. Collins*v. *Collins,*65 N. C. 135; *Cardwell*v. *Cardwell,*64 N. C. 621.

If the case were properly before us and it were allowable to us to ascertain the facts from the pleadings as now presented, we should say without hesitation that there is no case made out entitling the plaintiff to the writ. But for the reasons we have given, there is nothing before us to act on and the appeal must be dismissed and the ease remauded.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 07-50296 Summary Calendar

_______________________ DARRELL WASHINGTON, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION; THOMAS SEHON, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

No. 6:06-CV-326 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Darrell Washington appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his claims arising under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1981. Washington alleged that his former employer, Atmos Energy Corporation (“Atmos”), and Falls County District Judge Thomas Sehon (“Sehon”) conspired to fire him after he was involved in a verbal dispute with Sehon at a local doughnut shop. Sehon’s police report led to Washington’s arrest for retaliation against a public official and his subsequent termination.2 With respect to Washington’s § 1983 claim, Atmos, a private company, indisputably was not acting under color of state law. See Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. , 277 F.3d 743, 747- 50 (5th Cir. 2001). Sehon, even though he is a judge, did not act under color of law when he filed a criminal complaint as a private individual. See Daniel v. Ferguson, 839 F.2d 1124, 1130 (5th Cir. 1988); Delcambre v. Delcambre, 635 F.2d 407, 408 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).

Moreover, Washington’s § 1985(3) conspiracy claim fails because he did not plead that racial animus motivated Sehon’s actions, see Word of Faith World Outreach Ctr. Church, Inc. v. Sawyer, 90 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 1996), and, with respect to Atmos, “§ 1985(3) may not be invoked to redress violations of Title VII.” Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 378, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 2352 (1979); see also Horaist v. Doctor’s Hosp. of Opelousas, 255 F.3d 261, 270-71 (5th Cir. 2001).

Finally, the district court dismissed Washington’s § 1981 claim because he did not establish that he was a member of a protected class. A review of Washington’s complaint clearly shows that he never identified himself as a member of a racial minority. Nevertheless, Washington argues that this court should liberally construe his complaint because (1) he stated to Sehon that he disapproved of politicians running for office “on the backs of black people”; and (2) he identified white and Hispanic employees receiving more favorable treatment. However, nothing in our case3

law would permit this court to excuse Washington’s failure to allege an essential element of a § 1981 claim. See Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288-89 (5th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show that “he or she is a member of a racial minority”). This court will not speculate about Washington’s race when he failed to allege this simple fact despite two opportunities to amend his complaint.

AFFIRMED.
Abatement Order filed February 7, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00037

- CR

____________ CHARLES ROBERT WILLI AMS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 9406948



### ABATEMENT ORDER

In this appeal from unfavorable findings after DNA testing, appellant wa s represented by appointed counsel, Kelly Smith, in the trial court. At the conclusion of the DNA hearing on December 6, 2012 , counsel indicated that she would file an appeal on behalf of appellant. On January 31, 2013, appellant advised this court that he is not represented by counsel at this time, but that he is indigent and cannot afford an attorney. Our record does not contain an ord er appointing counsel for2

appeal. Appellant’s brief is currently due on or before March 4, 2013. Accordingly, we issue the following order:
The appeal is ordered ABATED so that the trial court may appoint appellate counsel for appellant, if the court has n ot already done so. The court is directed to
have a supplement al clerk’s record containing an order appointing appellate counsel filed with the clerk of this court, along with a record of any hearing that the trial court may deem necessary . Those records s hall be filed with the clerk of
this court on or before March 7, 2013

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental record is filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion

.

PER CURI AM
SERVED JULY 18, 2011 

DEPARTyENT OF 

:F;AMSPCRTATiON 

iOCKET OPERAl IONS 

2D!1 JiiL 18 P 2^3 0 

U.S. DBPARTMENT OF TI^NSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON. DC 

INTHEMA'ITBROF 

M & R HKLICOPTERS, LLC 

'AA DOCKET No. CPlOSOOOi 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMSNo. FAA-2010-121I 

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR DEPOSITION OF LAURA PONTO AND LATONYA WILLIAMS 

Respondent M & R Helicopters, LLC ("Respondent") has moved under 

14 CFR §13.225 to "have" the deposition of Laura Pohto and LaTonya 

Williams. The regulation cited Is inapplicable to the relief requested. 

Moreover, neither individual is a party to the case. The motion is DENIED. 

Pleadings which are repetitious, vexatious, or harassing will not be 

tolerated. They will be summarily denied, and further sanctions may issue. 

dministrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CPlOSOOOi 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

REVISED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, 

Respondent's Representative 

2816 Orefield Road 

AMentown, PA 18104 

TEL; 610-360-3953 

FAX; 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX; 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For sendee in person or by expedited courier, use llie following address: Federal 

Aviation Adniinistralion, 600 Independence Avenue.. S.W.. Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000. Washington, 

DC 20591; Altenlion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30. 

- 2-
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3194 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3194

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the 
                   ``Robert S. Walker Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT S. WALKER POST OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Robert S. Walker Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Robert S. 
Walker Post Office.

            Passed the Senate October 24 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3194

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the 
                   ``Robert S. Walker Post Office''.
```
Material for the Docket

Richard Kinch to: Steve Souders, Alexander Livnat 12/04/2009 02:49 PM

Cc: John Sager, Maria Vickers, Greg Helms

On December 4, 2009, there was a meeting between EPA and representatives of organizations interested 

in producing bricks from fly ash. In attendance were:

Maria Vickers USEPA 703-308-8236

Greg Helms USEPA 703-308-8845

John Sager USEPA 703-308-7256

Richard Kinch USEPA 703-308-8214

Kenneth Kastner Hogan & Hartson 202-637-5653

Michael Riley Fine Particulate Technology 443-865-6891

There was a claim that much of the information being discussed was confidential business information 

(CBI) -- this included who their clients were, the manufacturing process, and some leachate testing data 

on the bricks. EPA stated that the most valuable piece of information for us to have was their leachate 

testing data. They agreed to consider sending us the information without a CBI claim. The data we did 

see involved both the TCLP and SPLP tests and resultant leachate concentrations appeared to be low.

Their main request was for EPA to provide some kind of exemption in the upcoming rule for bricks made 

with fly ash. EPA did not provide any information on the structure of the draft proposal. Mr. Kastner 

indicated that if fly ash bricks were exempt, that they were not overly concerned with stigma - however, he 

expressed the thought that the rule should be limited to regulation under the toxicity characteristic and not 

as a listing. If listed, Mr. Kastner was concerned about derived from issues and small amounts of 

materials that may need disposal.

We discussed the impact of future air controls on their plans. They indicated the presence of carbon 

would not be an issue because it would simply be a fuel for their process. EPA remarked that if the utility 

used the carbon to capture Mercury, there would be concern that the brick making process would then be 

releasing Mercury. The industry representatives indicated there were emission requirements for brick 

manufacturers that would address any air emission issues.

From the general information provided, it did appear that the process can utilize a high percentage of fly 

ash -- providing economic savings both in material costs as well as energy costs.