alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit(4)(ii)(i)
                                                               -----------------

                 GE CAPITAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
                             ENHANCED PAYMENT RIDER

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


This rider provides for an additional payment that will be applied to your
Contract.

Enhanced Payment

We will add an enhanced payment amount to each Purchase Payment we receive.
This amount is funded from our General Account.  For each Purchase Payment you
make we will add a percentage of that Purchase Payment to your Contract Value.
The percentage for your initial Purchase Payment is shown on the Contract data
pages.  The percentage for any subsequent Purchase Payment will be the rate that
is in effect on the date that we receive any subsequent Purchase Payment.  The
enhanced payment amount is applied when your Purchase Payment is applied to your
Contract Value.  The enhanced payment amount is allocated on a prorata basis to
the Investment Options your selected in the same ratio as the applicable
Purchase Payment.

Ten Day Free Look

The Contract to which this rider is attached is amended by deleting the Ten Day
Free Look provision in its entirety and adding the following:

Ten Day Free Look:  You may return this Contract to our Service Center or to
your agent within 10 days after its delivery for a refund.  The amount of the
refund will equal the Contract Value (without reduction for any surrender
charges) plus any amount deducted from the Purchase Payments less enhanced
payment amounts.

Enhanced Payment Charge

There will be a charge made for this rider for each period it is in effect.
This charge is added to the asset charge that is deducted from any Subaccount on
a daily basis.  The asset charge is shown on the Contract Data pages.

When this Rider is Effective

This rider becomes effective on the Contract Date.  It will remain in effect
while this Contract is in force and before Income Payments begin.  This rider
cannot otherwise be terminated.

For GE Capital Life Assurance Company of New York,


                                                     /s/ PAMELA S. SCHUTZ
                                                     --------------------
                                                         Pamela S. Schutz
                                                         President
**EXHIBIT 21.01**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**

 

1. Concur Technologies (UK) Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. 

 

2. Concur Technologies (Australia) Pty. Limited, a corporation organized under the laws ofAustralia. 

 

3. Concur Technologies Pty. Limited, a corporation organized underthe laws of Australia. 

 

4. Captura Software, Inc., a corporation organizedunder the laws of the State of Delaware. 

 

5. Captura Software International,Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.
**Exhibit
      32.2**













**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**






**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**










In
      connection with the Annual Report of American Community Properties Trust (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Cynthia L. Hedrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my
      knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350), 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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------













/s/
                Cynthia L. HedrickCynthia
                L. HedrickChief
                Financial OfficerMarch
                23, 2007
<PAGE>



                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

NUMBER                                                         SHARES
XX                                                             XX

                            DEVON HOLDCO CORPORATION

THIS CERTIFIES THAT                                            IS THE OWNER OF
                        FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK
OF DEVON HOLDCO CORPORATION TRANSFERABLE ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION IN
PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE
PROPERLY ENDORSED.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE SAID CORPORATION HAS CAUSED THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE
SIGNED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND SEALED WITH THE SEAL OF THE
CORPORATION THIS                         DAY OF              A.D.             .

---------------------------                          --------------------------
Secretary                                            President
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

March 24, 2010 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

 for a Statement of Authorization 

 (U.S.-Vietnam Codesharing) 

 Docket OST- 2010-0073 

 

 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, Delta urges that 

the application be granted as soon as possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: Keith Glatz
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3087

___________

Roger Johnson; Ronald Farmer; *

Curt Brink; Christopher Trail, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

Gerald Porter, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Francis Kamuf; Willie Wright, and all *

those prisoners similarly situated within *

the Missouri Department of Corrections *

or held by officers or agents of the State *

of Missouri who are affected by this *

litigation, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Dora B. Schriro, Superintendent; *

Michael Groose; Lynda S. Taylor; *

Steven E. Moore, Darin Morgan, *

*

Appellees. *

___________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

No. 99-3088 Western District of Missouri.

___________

Roger Johnson; Ronald Farmer; Curt *

Brink; Christopher Trail; Gerald Porter, * [UNPUBLISHED]
-2-

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

Francis Kamuf, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Willie Wright, and all those prisoners *

similarily situated within the Missouri *

Department of Corrections or held by *

officers or agents of the State of *

Missouri who are affected by this *

litigation, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

Dora B. Schriro, Superintendent; *

Michael Groose; Lynda S. Taylor; *

Steven E. Moore; Darin Morgan, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 5, 2000

 Filed: May 15, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Porter and Francis Kamuf, Missouri inmates incarcerated at the Western

Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC), appeal the district court’s order dismissing

their complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
-3-

Appellants also move to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant them

permission to proceed IFP, leaving the fee-collection details to the district court in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

Further, after careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district

court as to Porter, because the record reveals that he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. However, we

reverse the judgment of the district court as to Kamuf, and remand so that he may

proceed on the merits, because he exhausted his administrative remedies before the

district court dismissed the complaint. See Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089, 1090

(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we grant appellants’ requests to proceed IFP on appeal; and we

affirm the judgment of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0491 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-012-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 430 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 37 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during 

steady-state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $20 for the decal

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to update 

the RFM)

(0.2 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour to install 

the decal)

$43

$17

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $80

Total US Fleet Cost $2,960

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong
#### ZACHARIAH TRICE *vs.*YARBOROUGH AND RAY.

Where a judgment was rendered against a party in the Superior Court of county which is distant from that .in .which'he resides and in which he has few acquaintances, where he had been induced to believe the verdict of the jury would be in his favor, when the court did not decide on his motion for a new trial until the last day of the term, when he had prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court and it was granted but he was unable after all his exer* tion to obtain sureties'for the appeal in the county where the suit was tried» and he moreover set forth in his affidavit that .he had merits onhis side; the court granted a *certiorari.*

This was a rule for a *certiorari*to bring up the proceedings in a suit determined at the last term of Cumberland Superior Court of Law, wherein Yarborough and Ray were plaintiffs and Zachariah Trice, who obtained the rule, was a defendant. Trice’s affidavit stated, that he was an inhabitant of Orange county, and resided about seventy miles distant from Fayetteville, the-county seat oí Cumberland county, and had very little acquaintance in -the latter county— that on the appeal in the suit from the County Court he gave good sureties, both inhabitants .of Cumberland -county, whom he had indemnified — that he was always advised by his counsel that the plaintiffs could not recover, and entertained no doubt of a judgment in his favor — but he calculated, however, if a judgment should be rendered against him, contrary to his own expectation and that of his counsel, he should be enabled, with the assistance of those, who had been sureties for his appeal from the County Court, to give the necessary sureties for an appeal to the Supreme Court — that in this expectation he was disappointed, after he had prayed the appeal to this court, although he made every exertion to procure such sureties. His affidavit further stated that he was advised the judgment against him was not according to law, and he annexed a statement of the case as made out by the presiding Judge.

On the return of the rule, several, counter affidavits were filed, made by citizens of Fayetteville, who stated they were *12well acquainted with Trice and had done business for him —some stated they had been applied to to bpcome his sureties to the appeal and had refused — others that they had not been called on, and would have refused if they had been applied to.

*Strange and Iredell*for Trice.

*Henry*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

Let the *certiorari*be granted, on the party’s giving bond and surety as required by law.
Adams, Kevin (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: Lang, LeAnna <leanna_lang@nps.gov> Wednesday, June 05, 2013 4:43 PM Devany, Dennis (OST); Adams, Kevin (OST) Makani Kai Service AlohaMr. DeVany and Mr. Adams, : ;! j; > ...::

........ : - ..,' ·.

During our community meeting in Kalaupapa, we were notified that we could comment on Makani Kai's service to Kalaupapa. Ithas been a real blessing to have Makani Kai servicing Kalaupapa! They have been extremely accommodating. Their prices are much more realistic and affordable thanthat ofthe previous airline who serviced the peninsulaunderthe EAS. Andthey have, as far as I cantell, much fewer cancellations off1ights

- at least it seems so to me. Perhaps the only criticism I have would be that the time in Honolulu between f1ights onmost weekdays (except for maybe Monday) is too shortto be able to do much ofanything. I know that I try to schedule multiple appointments (medical, etc.) when I go to O'ahu, and Iusually end up having to spend at least one day- ifnot two or more- because ofthis quick turnaround time (3 hours). By the time you get a taxi and/or your rental car and fight O'ahutraffic (and return), you're really luckyto make it to one appointment in those three hours. So thatjustincreases the cost for eachtrip (car rental, motel, meals, etc.) In a perfect world, I would have more time scheduledbetweenf1ights on O'ahu. As I've already stated, ifit were a perfect world that's what I would like to see. Thatbeing said, I would like to reiterate that I am EXTREMELY happy withthe service that the wonderful folks at Makani Kai are offering to us!
LeAnna B. Lang Maintenance Support Assistant KalaupapaNHP PO Box 2222, Kalaupapa, HI 96742 P: 808.567.6802, x1312 F: 808.567.6135 Email: leanna lang@nps.gov

1
Exhibit 32

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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Clark M. Mower, Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas N. Strong, Chief Financial Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated:  January 27, 2011

*/s/ Clark M. Mower*

Clark M. Mower

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: January 27, 2011

*/s/. Thomas N. Strong*

Thomas N. Strong

Chief Financial Officer

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50677 Summary Calendar

ALDOE L. FOSTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
ANGIE MCCOWN , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CV

- 472

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Aldoe L. Foster, Texas prisoner # 1182920, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that Angie McCown, Director of the Crime Victim Services Division, fraudulently retained funds from his work paychecks between De cember 2006 and March 2009. Foster
argues that his complaint arose under the Texas offense of t heft or fraud by a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 15, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50677 Document: 00515490114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2020No. 19

- 50677

2 public servant, Texas Penal Code § 31.03(a) and (b)(1), with a ten

- year limitations period set at article 12.01(2) of the Texas Code of Crimi nal Procedure. Foster does not challenge the district court’s conclusion, in adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, that McCown, in her official capacity, was immune from suit for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment

. Accordi ngly, he has abandoned the issue. See Mapes v. Bishop , 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008)

. There is no federal statute of limitations for actions brought under § 1983. S ee Bargher v. White , 928 F.3d 439, 444 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (July 2, 2019). Federal courts borrow the forum state’s general personal injury limitations period. Id. Contrary to Foster’s contentions, state criminal provisions do not provide the statute of limitations for purposes of a § 1983 claim. See id

. The two

- year statute of limitations under § 16.003(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies to § 1983 claims in Texas, even where the facts underlying a particular claim may make an exception appli cable under Texas law

. Owens v. Okure , 488 U.S. 235, 240 (1989) ; King

White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist. , 803 F.3d 754, 761 (5th Cir. 2015) ; see T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 16.003(a)

. Because, as Foster admits, he was aware of his claim on or about March 29, 2009, the district court acted within its discretion when the court determined that the period of limitations barred Foster’s 2019 complain t

. See Bargher , 928 F.3d at 4 44 ; Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. To the extent that Foster seeks appointment of counsel, he has failed to show exceptional circumstances and the motion is DENIED. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty., Tex. , 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 199 1). Case: 19-50677 Document: 00515490114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2020
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    State/Country of Incorporation/OrganizationSkechers U.S.A., Inc. II
    
    DelawareSkechers By Mail, Inc.
    
    Delaware310 Global Brands, Inc.
    
    DelawareSkechers USA Ltd.
    
    EnglandSkechers USA Canada Inc.
    
    CanadaSkechers USA Iberia, S.L.
    
    SpainSkechers USA Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanySkechers USA France SAS
    
    FranceSkechers EDC SPRL
    
    BelgiumSkechers USA Benelux B.V
    
    NetherlandsSkechers USA Italia S.r.l
    
    ItalySkechers S.a.r.l.
    
    SwitzerlandSkechers Footwear (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaSkechers Holdings Jersey Limited
    
    JerseySkechers USA Mauritius 10
    
    MauritiusSkechers USA Mauritius 90
    
    MauritiusSkechers China Business Trust
    
    ChinaSkechers Holdings Mauritius
    
    MauritiusSkechers Singapore Pte. Limited
    
    SingaporeSkechers (Thailand) Limited
    
    ThailandSkechers Do Brasil Calcados LTDA
    
    BrazilComercializadora Skechers Chile Limitada
    
    ChileSkechers Japan YK
    
    JapanSkechers Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaSkechers Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaSkechers Guangzhou Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaSkechers China Limited
    
    Hong KongSkechers Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong KongSkechers Southeast Asia Limited
    
    Hong KongSkechers International
    
    JerseySkechers International II
    
    JerseySkechers Collection, LLC
    
    CaliforniaSkechers Sport, LLC
    
    CaliforniaDuncan Investments, LLC
    
    CaliforniaYale Investments, LLC
    
    DelawareSepulveda Blvd. Properties, LLC
    
    CaliforniaSKX Illinois, LLC
    
    IllinoisSkechers R.B., LLC
    
    DelawareHF Logistics-SKX, LLC
    
    DelawareHF Logistics-SKX T1, LLC
    
    DelawareHF Logistics-SKX T2, LLC
    
    Delaware
Exhibit 32.2:

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 Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|/s/ James R. Buscemi   
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|May 6, 2008
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 451

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV

No. CR-12-670

JAMES COLLIER III

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered August 28, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[No. CR-2011-23-1]

HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES,

JUDGE

A F F I R M E D ; M O T I O N T O

WITHDRAW GRANTED

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge

Appellant James Collier III was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of aggravated

assault on a family or household member and of committing the assault in the presence of a

child. He was sentenced to a six-year term of imprisonment for the former conviction and

a two-year term of imprisonment for the latter, to be served consecutively. Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2012),

Collier’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. The motion is accompanied by an

abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, and a brief in which counsel asserts that

there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. Collier has filed a pro se

statement of points for reversal, and the State has filed a response to Collier’s statement.1

1This is the second time we have reviewed the case. In Collier v. State, 2013 Ark. App.

119, we ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to comply with our rules for no-merit cases.

Specifically, in the prior appeal, we noted that counsel abstracted, but failed to discuss, two

adverse evidentiary rulings. However, that error has now been corrected, and counsel has again

filed a motion to withdraw.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 451

The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error, but

rather would an appeal be wholly frivolous. Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d 904

(1994). Based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to Anders and the

requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that the appellant’s appeal is wholly without merit.

Therefore, pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301,

700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), we issue this memorandum opinion granting counsel’s motion to be

relieved and affirming the court’s judgment.

Affirmed; Motion to withdraw granted.

WHITEAKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Cecilia Ashcraft, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Jake H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

-2-