alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Go ve rnme nt c od e se c tio n 2 8. 05 3 w a s ame nd ed, effec tiv e Se pte mbe r 1 , 2 00 9, to p e rm it 1 appea ls from county

court to the c ourts of appea ls f or case s orig inating in small cla ims court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 28.053 (West Supp. 2009). Howeve r, the amendment applies only to “an action filed on or

afte r the e ffe ctive date of this A ct.” Act of J une 1, 2009, 81st L eg ., R.S., ch. 1351, § 14, 2009 Tex. Gen. L aws 4273, 4282. I bezim filed both his initial sui t in small claims court and his direct appe al to county court prior

to the September 1, 2009 e ffe ctive date of the amendment. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00571 -CV

F r anc is I be z im , A ppe lla nt

v. Ky A llen Strun c , Appellee

F ROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1- CV-08 -00 9258 , HO NORAB LE J. DAVID PH ILLIP S, JUDGE PRESI DING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt F ra nc is I be zim, a pp e ari ngpr o s e , a

pp e a ls f ro m a tr ia l de no vo in c ounty
c ourt on his dir e c t a

pp e a l f ro m a jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f a pp e lle e Ky

Al le n Stru

nc in sm all cla ims
c ourt . At the tim e I

be zim fil e d suit , th e c ourt s o f a pp e a ls l a c ke d ju

ri sd ic tio n o ve r c a se s o ri g ina lly filed in sma ll c laims c ourt. See Act of May 17, 1985, 69th L eg ., R.S., ch. 480, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. L aws 1720, 1816 (a

mended 2009) (cur

rent version at Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 28.053 (West Supp. 20 09 )) ; Sultan v. Mathew , 178 S.W .3d 747, 752 (Tex. 2005). As a re sult, we dismiss t his appea l 1 for wa nt of jurisdiction.2 __________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: F ebrua

ry 19, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-6

Judge Marbley

Richard Brandon Headin 

SEALED ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: March 16, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:18-cr-00006-ALM Doc #: 27 Filed: 03/16/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 50
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 4(iii)
                                                                                
                                                                                
                                                                  March 26, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Subject:  General Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K
          for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995--File No. 0-14804

Dear Sirs:

     Neither General Electric Capital Services, Inc. (the
"Corporation") nor any of its subsidiaries has outstanding any
instrument with respect to its long-term debt under which the
total amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total
assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.  In accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of Item 601 of
Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.601), the Corporation hereby agrees to
furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a
copy of each instrument which defines the rights of holders of
such long-term debt.

                              Very truly yours,


                             GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.


                             By: /s/ J. A. Parke
                                 ------------------------------
                                 J. A. Parke,
                                 Senior Vice President, Finance
**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 of AtheroGenics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Russell M. Medford,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to the best of my knowledge:





(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/RUSSELL
      M. MEDFORD


Russell M. Medford


President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 8, 2006














**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 of AtheroGenics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark P. Colonnese,
      Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





(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/MARK
      P. COLONNESE Mark
        P.
        Colonnese
 Executive
        Vice
        President, Commercial Operations
 and Chief Financial Officer
 Date: August 8, 2006
From: Tiffany Kolb <Tiffany.Kolb@aersale.com> 

To: Jeff Gardlin/ANM/FAA@FAA 

Date: 06/13/2011 01:18 PM 

Subject: Exemption No. 10223 

Hi Jeff, 

Thanks for taking the time to speak with me today regarding Exemption No. 10223 that 

we received on March 8, 2011. 

 

As we discussed, the spirit of the exemption was to provide AerSale with cover from the 

NPRM until the AD became effective. The exact language of the exemption, however, 

states that the exemption expires when the AD is issued. Since the AD won’t be effective 

until August 1, 2011, we ask for clarification or an amendment to the exemption that 

extends the exemption until such time as the AD is effective. 

 

Thank you very much. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. As I 

mentioned, we are pressed for time, so your speedy action would be greatly appreciated! 

 

Best regards, 

 

Tiffany J. Kolb, Esq. 

AerSale, Inc. 

121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1110 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Office: (305) 764-3234 

Fax: (305) 444-1275 

Mobile: (305) 877-0500 

Email: tiffany.kolb@aersale.com 

www.aersale.com
#### Carter v Downriver Schwinn Cyclery,

Nos. 90690, 90691;

Court of Appeals Nos. 112444,122205.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

KRISTINA BORLAND, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-94 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

(by full consent of the parties) 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of 

Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

(Doc. #13). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees 

in the amount of $6,000.00 and costs in the amount of $400.00 in full satisfaction and 

settlement of any and all claims Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the above case. 

The award of attorney fees and costs will satisfy all of Plaintiff’s claims for fees, costs, 

and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this case. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, 

and not her attorney, and can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes 

the United States under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

After the court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, the Defendant agrees to direct that 

the award be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to an EAJA assignment 
2

duly signed by Plaintiff and counsel. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #13) is accepted 

and the Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff=s attorney fees, costs, 

and expenses in the total amount of $6,400.00; 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this 

Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States subject to offset. If no such 

pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award 

directly to Plaintiff=s counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment 

signed by Plaintiff and counsel; and 

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 4, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge
#### Williams *v.*State.

4415

196 S. W. 2d 751

Opinion delivered September 30, 1946.

*Kenneth C. Coffelt,*for appellant.

*Guy*E.. *Williams,*Attorney General, and *Earl N. Wiliams,*Assistant .Attorney General, for appellee.

McHaNEy, Justice.

By information filed November 2, 1942, appellant, a Negro woman, was charged with murder in the first degree for the shooting and killing of another Negro woman, Lucille Williams. She was tried *403and convicted, at the March, 1946, term of Court, of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to one year in the State penitentiary.

When the case was called for trial appellant filed a motion to be discharged under the provisions of § 3969 of Pope’s Digest, she having been admitted to bail on or shortly after her arrest, on the ground that she had not been “brought to trail before the end of the third term of the Court” after admission to bail. That section so provides with the condition that the delay must not happen on her application. The Court overruled the motion for discharge and a trial followed with the result above stated.

On this appeal the only alleged error urged for a reversal is the overruling of said motion to be discharged.

It is undisputed that at the first term of court after the charge was filed, in March, 1943, a continuance was granted on appellant’s motion. It is also undisputed, and the Court so found in the order denying the motion, that the case was set for trial at the September, 1944, term, hut was not tried, and that no other setting of the case was asked by either the State or appellant until it was set for trial for March 11, 1946. In other words, appellant did not, on the record, or otherwise, demand a trial or resist postponements.

In the early case of *Stewart*v. *State,*13 Ark. 720, it was held that, in order to justify a discharge of the accused on such a motion,'“he must have placed himself on the record in the attitude of demanding a trial, or at least of resisting postponements.” In *Dillard*v. *State,*65 Ark. 404, 46 S. W. 533, the Stewart case, *supra,*was erroneously cited as being in the 23 Ark., and the language above quoted is there quoted with approval with other language of Chief Justice Watkins giving the reasons for the rule. It was there said, under similar facts to those here, “So it appears that appellant was consenting to or acquiescing in the delay, and made no demand for a trial or disposition of the case against him.” In *Ware*v. *State,*159 Ark. 540, 252 S. W. 934, the Stewart and *404Dillard cases were cited as also the later case of *Fox*v. *State,*102 Ark. 393, 144 S. W. 516, and the construction of the statute as given in the Stewart case was again approved. See, also, *Fulton*v. *State,*178 Ark. 841, 12 S. W. 2d 777.

Under the rule announced in these cases, the trial Court correctly overruled the motion to discharge appellant, since she never at any time demanded a trial or resisted postponement. By her silence she must be held to have consented to the postponements.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
   I, James R. Gordon, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 of TSFG (the “Report”):
  (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 TSFG.
 
 
 /s/ James R. Gordon
 James R. Gordon
 Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 The South Financial Group, Inc.
 March 16, 2010
 
 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 South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ex rel. BYOUNG JIN KOO, 

 Plaintiff/Relator, 

v. 

GS CALTEX, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Civil Action 2:18-cv-174 

Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

ORDER 

This matter came before the Court for a telephone conference on September 18, 2019. 

This Order memorializes the results of that conference. 

Relator moved for a protective order to vacate the Notice of Deposition served by the 

Government, seeking to take his deposition on September 19, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) Although 

the Court finds it appropriate for Relator’s deposition to take place, holding it on September 19 is 

not feasible due to Relator’s counsel’s schedule and Relator’s location in Korea. Moreover, 

Relator seeks production of certain interview notes prior to the deposition. 

Accordingly, Relator’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties are DIRECTED to confer regarding mutually 

convenient dates and locations for Relator’s deposition in October 2019. The Government is 

DIRECTED to provide its position regarding the production of the requested interview notes no 

later than SEPTEMBER 20, 2019. If the parties are unable to reach agreement about these 

matters, they shall promptly contact chambers via email to request an informal discovery 

conference. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00174-ALM-CMV Doc #: 33 Filed: 09/18/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 393
2 

It is further ORDERED that the Government’s deadline to file its opposition to Relator’s 

Motion for Award of Relator’s Share (ECF No. 17) is extended until 14 DAYS after Relator’s 

deposition takes place. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:18-cv-00174-ALM-CMV Doc #: 33 Filed: 09/18/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 394
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:18-CR-025

Plaintiff,

vs. District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
AMANDO AKIO TAKATA NAPOLES

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 39)

This case is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman (doc. 39), wherein the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment be accepted by
the Court and that Defendant be found guilty as charged in such Count. The parties filed no
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the time for filing
objections has expired.

The Court, having reviewed the matter de novo, determines that the Report
and Recommendation (doc. 39) of the United States Magistrate Judge should be and is
hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. The Court ACCEPTS Defendant’s guilty plea and
Defendant is hereby adjudged GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment.

Lr >

Walter H. Rice

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: = 2-'&
```

                                                                                                       Exhibit 10.9

                        At Will Employment Compensation Arrangements for Executive Officers

         O’Sullivan does not have employment agreements with any of its executive officers
other than Messrs. Robert S. Parker, Rick A. Walters and Michael D. Orr.  It has
compensation arrangements with its other executive officers.  Of the named executive officers
in O’Sullivan’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004, the only
officer so named with such an arrangement is Rowland H. Geddie, III

         Mr. Geddie’s at will compensation arrangement includes the following:

         ›        a salary of $151,400 per year,

         ›        an automobile allowance of $8,000 per year,

         ›        a bonus target of 40% of his salary under O’Sullivan’s incentive compensation
                  plan,

         ›        the opportunity to participate in employee benefit and employee welfare plans,
                  including

                  ›        O’Sullivan’s Savings and Profit Sharing Plan,
                  ›        O’Sullivan’s Deferred Compensation Plan, and
                  ›        O’Sullivan’s Welfare Plan, which provides medical and dental insurance
                           as available to all employees resident in Barton County, Missouri, life
                           insurance in an amount equal to two times his salary and disability
                           insurance,

         ›        three weeks of vacation per year,

         ›        payment by O’Sullivan of professional training and development costs and the
                  costs of dues for professional associations,

         ›        use of a cellular telephone,

         ›        an indemnification agreement in the form previously filed with the Securities
                  and Exchange Commission,

         ›        a termination protection agreement that provides certain benefits in the event of
                  a change in control of O’Sullivan, as described in our annual reports on Form
                  10-K, and

         ›        options to purchase 3,000 shares of O’Sullivan Class A common stock (600
                  shares vested as of February 10, 2005).
```
##### 



_
    _
   UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
    EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C.
    20549
    
  Form 10-K/A
 
 
  Amendment No. 1
 
  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 13 OR 15(d)  OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
    1934
  For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
  Commission file number
    000-26887
     Silicon Image, Inc. (Exact name of
    registrant as specified in its charter)
  Delaware

77-0396307(State of
    incorporation)

(IRS employer identification
    number)   1060 East Arques Avenue
    Sunnyvale, CA 94085 (Address of principal
    executive offices and zip code)
  (Registrants telephone number, including area code)(408) 616-4000
  Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the
    Act:
    Common Stock, $0.001 par value
     o þ
  o þ
  þ o
  Regulation S-K Form 10-K Form 10-K o
  Rule 12b-2
 o þ o
  Rule 12b-2 o þ
     
  DOCUMENTS
    INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
 
 
  Form 10-K/A. Form 10-K




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY
    NOTE
 
 
  Form 10-K Rule 12b-15
 
 
  Form 10-K Form 10-K




---



##### 



SIGNATURES      By:
    /s/  STEVE
    TIRADO    Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)




---



##### 



INDEX TO
    EXHIBITS  
 
 Number

Title10
.35*/**

Consulting Agreement between David
    Lee and the Registrant dated March 15, 2006.31
.01

Certification of Chief Executive
    Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002.31
.02

Certification of Chief Financial
    Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002.32
.01***

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 2002.32
.02***

Certification of Chief Financial
    Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 
    
  *
    
    Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to
    certain portions of this exhibit. Omitted portions have been
    filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
 
  **
    
    This exhibit is a management contract or compensatory plan or
    arrangement. 
 
  ***
    
    This exhibit is being furnished, rather than filed, and shall
    not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing of the
    Registrant, in accordance with Item 601 of
    Regulation S-K.
# ] ) ^

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C

Delber t Johnso n d/b/ aTw o Dog s Aviatio n

Complainant , V . Goidsbor o Wayn e Airpor t Authorit y Respondent
. FA A Docke t No . 16-08-14 3

NOTIC EO FEXTENSIO N O FTIM E Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RSectio n 16.11(a) , th e Directo r doe s hereb y exten dth e dat e tha t th e Director' s initia l determinatio n wil l b e rendered , i n th e abov e reference dcase , t o o n o r befor e Octobe r

16 , 2009
. A n extensio n o f

tim e i s essentia l for

afair an dcomplet e hearing o f th e matte r

before th e agency . 

# fcUoTf./ ^ Randal l S
. Fiert z Director , Offic e o f

Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation sCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E I HEREB Y CERTIF Y that o n Octobe r

5
. 2009, 1 cause dt o b e place din th e Unite d State s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid) , atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

addresse d to : Glen n A
. Barfiel d Pos t Offic e Drawe r

7 Goidsboro , N C 27533-000 7 (919 ) 735-642 0

Counse l for

Complainan t W . Harrel l Everett , Jr . Everett , Womble , Lawrenc e & Brown , LL P 50 7 B NorthSpenc e Avenu e Goidsboro , N C 2753 2 (919 ) 778-670 7 Pabl o O
. Niiesc h Elain e C
. Lippman n Spiegel & McDiarmid , LL P 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Ave. , N W Washington , D C 2000 5

Counse l fo

r Responden t Han dDelivere dto : Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

Deahdr aBrook s Offic e o f AirpoF^jCqpi^lianc e an d Fiel dOperation s