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


                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                         Date of Report: August 13, 2002

                                US ONCOLOGY, INC.
                          -----------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


    Delaware                      0-26190                      84-1213501
----------------               ------------               -------------------
(State or Other                (Commission                  (I.R.S.Employer
Jurisdiction of                File Number)               Identification No.)
Incorporation
or Organization)

                       16825 Northchase Drive, Suite 1300
                                 Houston, Texas
                                      77060
                        --------------------------------
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)
                                   (Zip Code)

       Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (832) 601-8766


<PAGE>

Item 9.  REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE

On August 13, 2002, R. Dale Ross, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of US Oncology, Inc. (the "Corporation"), and Bruce D. Broussard, Chief
Financial Officer of the Corporation, each filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a statement under oath regarding facts and
circumstances relating to the Securities Exchange Act filings of the
Corporation, as required by the SEC's Order Requiring the Filing of Sworn
Statements Pursuant to Section 21(a)(1) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(File No. 4-460, June 27, 2002).

The statements are attached to this report as exhibits.

Item 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

c)  Exhibits

     99.1 STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND
          CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS


     99.2 STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND
          CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS



<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 hereunto duly authorized.

Date:    August 13, 2002


                              US ONCOLOGY, INC.

                              By:  Bruce D. Broussard
                              -------------------------
                              Bruce D. Broussard
                              Chief Financial Officer
#### COM. v. AYALA, R.

3085 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/14/2017

CP-51-CR-0012021-2009

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000814926
<NAME> FREEDOM FUNDING, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1989
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1989
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   375
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       375
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 11, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130068 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. KELLY AND RONALD HUNTSMAN, et al, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Justices

v SC: 130068 COA: 262216 Roscommon CC: 04-724629-CZ GERRISH TOWNSHIP, et al, Defendants,

and

PHILIP WILL, et al, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered . We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in their application papers.

p0809 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 11, 2006

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40583

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARWIN JOSE RAUDA-BONILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-113-1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Darwin Jose RaudaBonilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rauda-Bonilla has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

February 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40583 Document: 00514354410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
No. 17-40583

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40583 Document: 00514354410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

Re: Annual Statement of Compliancefor Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-LC20

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of March 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activitiesduring the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has beenmade under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

 /s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8435 

To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, including 

toll lanes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 

Mr. ROSE of New York (for himself and Mr. KATKO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, 

including toll lanes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HOV Lanes for Heroes 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOV FACILITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 166(b) of title 23, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(6) DISABLED VETERANS.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8435 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The public authority 

2 may allow a disabled veteran to use the HOV 

3 facility if such veteran has a license plate that 

4 clearly identifies the vehicle, a registered trans5 ponder, or other method of identification the 

6 public authority considers necessary for quali7 fication. 

8 ‘‘(B) DEFINITION OF DISABLED VET9 ERAN.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

10 term ‘disabled veteran’ means a veteran (as 

11 such term is defined in section 101 of title 38) 

12 who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has de13 termined has a service-connected (as such term 

14 is defined in such section) disability rated at or 

15 above a percentage determined to be qualifying 

16 by the public authority. 

17 ‘‘(C) OCCUPANCY EXCEPTION.—Notwith18 standing the occupancy requirement of sub19 section (a)(2), 1 occupant described in subpara20 graph (B) of this paragraph may be permitted 

21 to use a HOV facility. 

22 ‘‘(D) NO CHARGE FOR TOLLS.—Under this 

23 paragraph, a public authority may charge no 

24 toll.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8435 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 166 of 

2 such title is further amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘through 

4 (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘through (6)’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ‘‘paragraph 

6 (4) or (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4), (5), or 

7 (6)’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
_____________

No. 96-2030NE

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Scott A. Schneider, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: August 7, 1996

 Filed: August 12, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Scott A. Schneider appeals the district court's order revoking

Schneider's three-year term of supervised release and imposing seven months

of imprisonment followed by either 26 or 29 months of supervised release.

Where an oral sentence and the written judgment conflict, the oral sentence

controls. See United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994)

(concerning concurrent versus consecutive sentences). But cf. Holloway v.

United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1358 (8th Cir. 1992) (ambiguities in

sentencing pronouncement are to be construed in favor of defendant).

Counsel's brief notes this discrepancy (Counsel's Br. at 3 n.3), but

Schneider's brief refers to the "26-month term of supervised release"

(Supp. Br. at 5). We suggest the district court clarify the discrepancy

between the oral and written record by an appropriate statement or order

in the district court record.

Turning to Schneider's appeal, counsel has filed a brief under
-2-

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Schneider has filed a

supplemental brief. Schneider and his counsel invite this court to depart

from Eighth Circuit precedent holding that supervised release may be

reimposed after a term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised

release. Simply stated, their invitation is foreclosed by our earlier

holdings. See United States v. Stewart, 7 F.3d 1350, 1352 (8th Cir. 1993);

United States v. Schrader, 973 F.2d 623, 625 (8th Cir. 1992). Having

reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549



                                   FORM 8-K

                                CURRENT REPORT



                      PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF
                      THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



      Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): February 27, 2002



                            IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



           TEXAS                      1-10307                    74-0704500
(State or other jurisdiction   (Commission File Number)        (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)                                     Identification No.)



                     ONE IMPERIAL SQUARE
                         P. O. BOX 9
                      SUGAR LAND, TEXAS                      77487
           (Address of principal executive offices)       (Zip Code)



       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (281) 491-9181
<PAGE>

Item 2 - Acquisition or Disposition of Assets

     On February 13, 2002, Imperial Sugar Company sold its 100% owned subsidiary
Michigan Sugar Company and its subsidiary, Great Lakes Sugar Company, to a
grower-owned cooperative, Michigan Sugar Beet Growers, Inc. for $45.0 million,
plus the assumption of $18.5 million of debt. Imperial received $29.0 million in
cash at the closing, and will receive $16.0 million in deferred payments.
Michigan Sugar Company operates four beet sugar processing factories in
Michigan. Prior to the sale, the Michigan factories to the cooperative, and
managed and operated the factories. Imperial will continue to market all refined
sugar products for Michigan sugar under an exclusive ten-year marketing
agreement.

     On February 13, 2002, the Company issued a press release in respect of the
foregoing. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as an exhibit and
incorporated herein by reference.


Item 7 - Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information & Exhibits

     (a)  Press Release
     (b)  Amended Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURE


     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 hereunto duly authorized.


                                   IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY



Date: February 27, 2002            By: /s/ J. Chris Brewster
                                       ---------------------
                                       J. Chris Brewster
                                       Managing Director and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)
### The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1669

___________ Ervin Wright, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Division of Finance, Collection * Western District of Missouri. Department, Jackson County, * Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 28, 1996 Filed: November 1, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Wright fi led this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking injunctive relief and mo netary damages for alleged due process and equal protectio n violations by state taxing authorities. Wright complained that a schedule d foreclosure sale of h is property to recover tax delinquencies constituted
a taking without due process of law, and that defendant raciall y discriminated against him because he is black.

On defendant's motion, the district court dismissed Wright' s 1 complaint, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because Missouri law provided an adequat e state remedy. Wright timely appealed.

### We note that pending this appeal, defendant has held in 2 

### abeyance the prospective sale of the property at issue. -2- We review de novo whether federal subject matter jurisdiction e xists. Keene Corp. v. Cass , 908 F.2d 293, 296 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude the district court was correct in dismissing Wright's complaint. See 2 8 2 U.S.C. § 1341 (federal courts lack jurisdiction over actions to enjoi n assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under state law where plain , speedy, and efficient state remedy available); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 141.210- 141.810 (providing procedures for challenging as sessment and collection of tax); Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n, Inc. v. McNary , 454 U.S. 100, 107, 116-17 (1981) (barring § 1983 suits for monetary damages because of principle of comity; addressing adequacy of Miss ouri's taxpayer-protection proce sses). Defendant presented unrebutted evidence that Wrigh t partic ipated in a pre-foreclosure evidentiary hearing. As to Wright' s equal protection claim, he failed to allege any supporting facts entitling him to relief. See Klinger v. Department of Corrections , 31 F.3d 727, 731 , 733 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting equal protection thr eshold requirement), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1177 (1995).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**We're sorry but election_tool doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.**
NO. 07-03-0329 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C SEPTE MBE R 24, 2003

______________________________ MARCELINO ANDRE S SOLIS, APPE LLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM COUNT Y COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF POT TER COUNT Y; NO. 102,723; HON ORABLEW ILLIAM D ODSON, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
MEM ORAN DUM OP INI ON Pending beforethis Cou rtis appellant’s motion to dism iss his appeal. Although the mot ion is signe d only by appel lant’s attor ney, it is accomp anied by a copy of a letter written and sign ed b y ap pella nt in w hich he exp res seshis inte nt to dis m iss his app eal. Concluding the mo tion and attached letter s ubs tan tially com ply with the requirem ents of2

Rule42.2(a) of the Texas Ru les of Appellate Procedure, w e grant the m otion. No decision of this Court having been delivered, the appeal is dismissed. No m otio n fo r re hea ring w ill be entertained and our m andate will issue forthwith. Don H. Rea vis Justice Do not publish.
EX-1026



		

			EXHIBIT 10.26

		


		

			 

		




		
			 
		

		
			DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC.
		

		
			GRANT NOTICE FOR 2008 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
PERFORMANCE RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
		

		
			FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (the “Company”), hereby grants to Grantee named below the number of performance restricted stock units specified below (the “Award” or the “Performance RSUs”), upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Grant Notice, the Dresser-Rand Group Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the Standard Terms and Conditions (the “Standard Terms and Conditions”) adopted under such Plan and provided to Grantee, each as amended from time to time. Grantee must formally accept the Award within 90 days following the Grant Date specified in this Grant Notice; if Grantee fails to do so, the Award will be forfeited and Grantee will have no further rights with respect to the Award.  Each performance restricted stock unit subject to this Award represents the right to receive one share of the Company's Common Shares, subject to the conditions set forth in this Grant Notice, the Plan and the Standard Terms and Conditions. This Award is granted pursuant to the Plan and is subject to and qualified in its entirety by the Standard Terms and Conditions. The Standard Terms and Conditions may be accessed through Grantee's personal Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Benefit Access account in the Plan Documents section.
		

		
			

		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Name of Grantee:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Grant Date:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Number of performance restricted stock units subject to the Award at Target performance:

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			By accepting this Grant Notice, Grantee acknowledges that he or she has received and read, and agrees that this Award shall be subject to, the terms of this Grant Notice, the Plan and the Standard Terms and Conditions.
		

		
			 
		

		
			DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By: /s/ VINCENT R. VOLPE JR.
		

		
			Name: Vincent R. Volpe Jr.
		

		
			Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		 


		

			1