alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM 8-K


                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549



                                 CURRENT REPORT

                Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
                              Exchange Act of 1934


                                 August 14, 1998
                                 Date of Report



                                 ENERCORP, INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)


               Colorado             0-9083              84-0768802
               ---------------      -----------         -----------  
              (State or other     (Commission          (I.R.S. Employer
              jurisdiction o      file number)         Identification Number)
              incorporation or
              organization)


         7001 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 424
         West Bloomfield, Michigan                       48322-3608
         ----------------------------------------        ---------- 
         (Address of Principal Executive Offices)        (Zip Code)


   Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (248) 851-5651


                                       N/A
                ------------------------------------------------
           Former name or former address, if changed from last report


<PAGE>


 ITEM 5:  Other Events

     On February 26, 1998, Enercorp, Inc. (the "Registrant") had been advised by
 The Nasdaq Stock  Market,  Inc.  ("Nasdaq")  that Nasdaq  planned to delist the
 Registrant from the Nasdaq Small Cap Market ("SmallCap") because the Registrant
 did not meet the SmallCap maintenance standards for (1) the number of shares in
 the public  float and (2) the market  value of the public  float at the time of
 Nasdaq's notification to the Registrant.
     On July 28, 1998,  the Nasdaq  Listing  Qualifications  Panel (the "Panel")
 reviewing this matter  notified the Registrant that the Registrant had regained
 compliance  with the market  value of the public float  requirement  based on a
 recent increase in the Registrant's common stock price.
    As to the  requirement  for a minimum  500,000  shares in the public  float,
through a recent change in ownership of shares owned by a principal  stockholder
of the  Registrant,  the Registrant is now in compliance  with NASD  Marketplace
Rule  4310(c)(07),  and has 517,897 shares in the public float.  This places the
Registrant in compliance with all Nasdaq standards for continued  listing on the
Nasdaq SmallCap Market.



<PAGE>





                                   SIGNATURES

 Pursuant  to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  the
 Registrant  has duly  caused  this  report to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
 undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


 Date: August 14, 1998

                                 ENERCORP, INC.


 
                                  By s\Robert R. Hebard
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Robert R. Hebard, President
GTE - 2013.03.31 - EX 10.7




Exhibit 10.7
Gran Tierra Energy Brasil Ltda.
	
	
	Av. das Américas, 3500 – Ed. Londres - salas 515 e 516



	Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro 


Brasil  CEP: 22.640-102

	 






Attention Julio Moreira                                February 21, 2013


Re:  Executive Employment Agreement between you and Gran Tierra Energy Brasil Ltda. (“GTB”), a Brazilian company, an affiliate company of Solana Resources Ltd. (“Solana”), and Gran Tierra Energy Inc., an Alberta, Canada corporation (“Gran Tierra”).


Dear Julio:
The Compensation Committee of the Board and Board of Directors have approved the increase to the annual maximum membership cost of a golf club and to monthly club maintenance fees.
As a result, we are pleased to propose that the following sentence in “Perquisites and Expenses” set out in Article 8 of the Executive Employment Agreement be amended such that it be changed from “GTB will reimburse the Executive for the membership cost of a Golf Club and to monthly club maintenance fees to a maximum of R$ 13,200/annum” to “GTB will reimburse the Executive for the membership cost of a Golf Club and to monthly club maintenance fees to a maximum of R$ 17,000/annum”.


Sincerely,
Gran Tierra Energy Inc.
/s/ Dana Coffield
Dana Coffield
I hereby accept and agree to the foregoing amendment to the Executive Employment Agreement:
Signature: /s/ Julio Moreira    
Date: February 21, 2013
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 12, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 12, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0068. TALBOT CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. EASTSIDE CONCRETE

CONTRACTORS, INC..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

08CV0691
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 
**- 6**  **284**

MICHAEL FARROW ,

P etitioner

- Appell ant ,

v.

WARDEN TRACY JOHNS , Respondent

- Appell ee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:09

- hc

- 02146

- FL )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Farrow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Farrow, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241

(West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Farrow v. Johns , No.

5:09

- hc

- 02146

- FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2010) . We dispense with
oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DOANE
PRODUCTS COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,879
<PP&E>                                         101,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,112)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,301
<BONDS>                                        160,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     24,160
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   338,333
<SALES>                                        500,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               500,708
<CGS>                                          443,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  475,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,219
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (855)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,518)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,518)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (7,264)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00365

- CR

Victor BARSENAS, Jr.

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR1810W

Honorable St ephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to continuous violence against the family

. The trial court assessed punishment at six years’ imprisonment . On May 10,

2019 , the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2).

“In a plea bargain case .

. . a defendant may appeal only: (A) th ose matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

- bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defend ant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).

This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that appellant has the right to appe al is made part of the appellate record on or before August 12, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1;

Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court._________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 8th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3808 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any 

notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State 

other than the State where the court is located when 

such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3808 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interstate Recognition 

3 of Notarizations Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL 

5 COURTS. 

6 Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notari7 zation made by a notary public licensed or commissioned 

8 under the laws of a State other than the State where the 

9 Federal court is located if— 

10 (1) such notarization occurs in or affects inter11 state commerce; and 

12 (2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary 

13 public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or 

14 (B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal 

15 information is securely attached to, or logically asso16 ciated with, the electronic record so as to render the 

17 record tamper-resistant. 

18 SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE 

19 COURTS. 

20 Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a 

21 State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a 

22 notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of 

23 a State other than the State where the court is located 

24 if— 

25 (1) such notarization occurs in or affects inter26 state commerce; and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3808 RFS 

1 (2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary 

2 public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or 

3 (B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal 

4 information is securely attached to, or logically asso5 ciated with, the electronic record so as to render the 

6 record tamper-resistant. 

7 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

8 In this Act: 

9 (1) ELECTRONIC RECORD.—The term ‘‘elec10 tronic record’’ has the meaning given that term in 

11 section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global 

12 and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006). 

13 (2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH.—Seal infor14 mation is ‘‘logically associated with’’ an electronic 

15 record if the seal information is securely bound to 

16 the electronic record in such a manner as to make 

17 it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, 

18 either the record or the seal information. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Order filed, February1, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00049

- CV

____________ ROBERT ARNOLD , Appellant

V.
CITY OF ORANGE, TEXA S , Appellee

On Appeal from the 260th District Court

Orange County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D110312

- C



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due January 28, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Kellie Derouen , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 of Superclick, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, Todd M. Pitcher, Chief Executive 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Dated:  January 18, 2005                     /s/ Todd Pitcher
                                             ----------------
                                             Name   Todd Pitcher
                                             Title  Chairman
II 

Calendar No. 168 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3206 

To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

that impose new information reporting requirements with respect to 

digital asset transfers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2021 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

NOVEMBER 16, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act that impose new information reporting 

requirements with respect to digital asset transfers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NEW INFORMATION REPORTING 

4 REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO DIGITAL 

5 ASSET TRANSFERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by section 

7 80603 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3206 PCS

1 repealed and the provisions of law amended by such sec2 tion are restored as if such section had never been enacted. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub4 section (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment of 

5 this Act. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 168 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3206 

A BILL 

To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Inital asset transfers. tion reporting requirements with respect to dig- vestment and Jobs Act that impose new informaNOVEMBER 16, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
AIRCRAFT, MAINTENANCE AND MISSION LOGS

All logs are to be recorded electronically on the Flying Home Productions LLC profile of the dji

Application

Note: All fields must be completed

Flying Home Productions 0900006481e29fc3

Mission Logs must be completed within 1.5 hours of completion of mission

- All fields must be completed, and complete details must be provided around the following 

areas:

o Aircraft Configuration

o Aircraft changes since last flight

o Payload

o WP description

o Mission Objectives

o Flight data

o Post flight analysis

o Additional notes

Maintenance Logs must be completed within 1.5 hours of completion of each scheduled/planned 

maintenance activity.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

The State, Petitioner,

v.
Henry Haygood, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001985

ON WRI T OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Orangeburg County The Honorable Edgar W. Dick son, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-005 Submitted February 3, 2015 – Filed February 11, 2015

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Croom Colvin Hunter, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Breen Richard Stevens, of Orangeburg, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: The State seeks a writ of certio rari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in State v. Haygood , 409 S.C. 420, 762 S.E.2d 69 (2014). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, affirm the Court of Appeals' opinion in part, vacate in part , and remand for a new trial.

The Court of Appeals found the circuit court erred in finding the testimonial statements made by the victim to the police did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because the statements fell within the excited utterance exception to hearsay. See Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) ("Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law . . . . Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: una vailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.").

The Court of Appeals also found the admi ssion of the victim's statement in this case violated the Confrontation Clause because the victim's statements were testimonial, there was no evidence the victim was unavailabl e to testify, and there was no evidence respondent had the opportuni ty to cross-examine the victim. We find the Court of Appeals erred in addressing whether the facts of this case demonstrated respondent's rights under th e Confrontation Clau se were violated because the record before the court lacked the facts necessary to make such a determination. For unexplained reasons, the recording of the proceeding before the magistrate's court was unavailable, and th e only facts available to the Court of Appeals were from the magist rate's summary of the responding officer's testimony during the State's case-in-chief. We find the information contained in the magistrate's summary is insufficient to conduct a Confrontation Clause analysis, especially where the magistrate did not hold a hearing to determine whether the officer's testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause.

Therefore, we vacate the Court of App eals' opinion to the extent it addresses whether the victim's statement violated the Confrontation Clau se. We remand for a new trial in accordance w ith this Court's opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATE D IN PART, AND REMANDED
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1
                                                                     (1999 10-K)

                          FIRST NORTHERN CAPITAL CORP.

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                      -----------------------------------------------
                                                          1999              1998             1997
                                                      ------------      ------------     ------------
<S>                                                  <C>                 <C>             <C>
    BASIC:
    Weighted average common shares
      outstanding during each period                     8,704,183         8,851,486        8,834,937
                                                         =========         =========        =========


    DILUTED:
    Weighted average common shares
       outstanding during each period                    8,704,183         8,851,486        8,834,937
    Incremental share relating to:
      Dilutive stock options outstanding at
      end of each period (1)                               176,782           241,167          245,300
                                                        ----------        ----------       ----------

                                                         8,880,965         9,092,653        9,080,237
                                                         =========         =========        =========

    NET INCOME FOR EACH PERIOD                          $7,377,000        $6,829,000       $6,036,000


    NET INCOME PER COMMON
           SHARE AMOUNTS:

     Basic                                                   $0.85             $0.77            $0.68
     Diluted                                                 $0.83             $0.75            $0.66
    ----------------
</TABLE>

Notes:
  (1) Based on treasury stock method using average market price.