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 (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED): SEPTEMBER 16, 2002

                              DYNEGY HOLDINGS INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

         Delaware                       0-29311                94-3248415
(State or other jurisdiction    (Commission File Number)     (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)                                    Identification No.)

                           1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
                              Houston, Texas 77002
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (713) 507-6400

                                 Not Applicable
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)


<PAGE>



ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS.

     On September 16, 2002, Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy"), the wholly owning parent
company of Dynegy Holdings Inc., issued a press release announcing that Barry J.
Galt had been elected to Dynegy's Board of Directors and Audit and Compliance
Committee. Mr. Galt, the former Seagull Energy Corp. Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, replaced Michael D. Capellas, who previously resigned from
Dynegy's Board of Directors. A copy of Dynegy's September 16th press release is
attached hereto as exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

     On September 20, 2022, Dynegy issued a press release announcing that Daniel
L Dienstbier had been elected Dynegy's Chairman of the Board. Dynegy also
announced that H. John Riley, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Cooper Industries, Ltd., has resigned from the Board. Mr. Riley's
successor on the Board has not been named. A copy of Dynegy's September 20th
press release is attached hereto as exhibit 99.2 and is incorporated herein by
this reference.

ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

     a) Financial Statements of Business Acquired - Not Applicable.

     b) Pro Forma Financial Information - Not Applicable.

     c) Exhibits:

          99.1 Press Release of Dynegy Inc. dated September 16, 2002.

          99.2 Press Release of Dynegy Inc. dated September 20, 2002.


<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.

                                    DYNEGY HOLDINGS INC.

                                    BY: /s/ Keith R. Fullenweider
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Keith R. Fullenweider
                                        Senior Vice President,
                                        Deputy General Counsel and Secretary

Dated:  September 23, 2002
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, HOUTZ, and MYERS

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Randal M. NELSON

Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202100329

_________________________

Decided: 18 April 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Eric A. Catto

Sentence adjudged 5 August 2021 by a general court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by the convening authority: reduction to E-1, confinement for 9 months, and a badconduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Michael E. Maffei, JAGC, USN
United States v. Nelson, NMCCA No. 202100329

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         369,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        320,584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,965
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,339
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,734
<INCOME-TAX>                                       690
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 12, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00798

- CV

IN THE COMMITMENT OF STEPHEN PATRICK BLACK,

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial C ourt No. 15

- 1805

- CV Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In June 2018, Stephen Patrick Black filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’ s May 9,

2018 biennial review order

. However, the Guadalupe County District Clerk did not forward the notice of appeal to this court until October 24, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(f) (requiring trial court clerk to “immediately send a copy of the notice of appeal to the appellate court clerk ” ).

Because the clerk’s record was not filed by September 6, 2018, when it was due, the clerk of this

court noti fi ed Debra Crow, the Guadalupe County District Clerk, that the record was past due. The notice required Ms. Crow to file the record by November 2 8, 2018. We received no response to our letter and the clerk’s record has not been filed

.

We order Debra Crow to file the record in this court by December 27, 2018

. The record should include all filings and orders relating to the 2018 biennial review proceeding. Ms. Crow is advised that the court will not grant a further extension of time unless she (1) establishes there are extraordinary circumstances that prevent her from timely filing the record, (2) advises the court of what efforts have been expended to prepa re the record and the status of completion, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance the record will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c), we also order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.1




Annual Servicer’s Certificate


Provided by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to Holders of Notes and Certificates









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Michael J. McConnell, Vice President of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review, under his supervision, to be made of i) the activities; and ii) the performance under the Agreement (as defined below), of the Company during the period from December 10, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”); and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Section 4.09(a) of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 10, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, in its individual capacity and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2014-B Owner Trust.




Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2015.




/s/Michael J. McConnell________________


Michael J. McConnell


Vice President
#### IN RE: HOWARD, M., Appeal of: Gray, S.

1428 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

83489

(Berks)

Affirmed
No. 11-10309.

#### Corbett *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelly M. BASS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-14300 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 26, 2018)

Jeffrey W. Davis, Timothy H. Lee, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney Service — Northern District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brian Mendelsohn, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kelly Bass appeals her below-the-guidelines-range sentence of six months’ imprisonment, followed by eight months’- home confinement for her convictions for conspiracy to escape from custody, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and assisting escape, 18 U.S.C. § 752. She argues that her total sentence was substantively unreasonable, because any term of imprisonment was unnecessary given her lack of criminal history, her need to maintain employment and care for her family, and her medical problems.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court first ensures that the district court made no significant procedural error, then examines whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597. The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show that the sentence was unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. *United States v. Tome,*611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). We ordinarily expect a sentence that falls within the guideline range to be reasonable. *United States v. Hunt,*526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). This review is deferential, and we will only vacate the sentence if “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment ... by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” *United States v. Pugh,*515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bass’s sentence., On appellate review, we are prohibited from setting aside a sentence because we would have levied another one. *See United States v. Irey,*612 F.3d 1160, 11910 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the court discussed *682the § 3553(a) factors, emphasized the seriousness of her offense, considered all of the arguments she presented, and ultimately concluded that her total sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary. Accordingly, we must affirm.

AFFIRMED.
**
**Exhibit 12.2**

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to**

**Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

**as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Eric Dutang, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 20-Fof Cellectis S.A.; and 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

Date: April 25, 2019 

 

/s/ Eric Dutang
Name: Eric DutangTitle: Chief Financial Officer*** (Principal**** Financial**** Officer)***
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Office of Small Business Programs

OUSD (A&S) Industrial Policy

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) 

Virtual Industry Day
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Amy Murray

Deputy DASD, Office of Industrial Policy

Director, Office of Small Business Programs 

2
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 3

“ Not only are America’s nearly 30 million small businesses the 

engine of our economy, they also provide critical goods, 

services, and technologies which actively contribute to the 

health of the manufacturing and defense industrial base.”

Dr. Mark T. Esper 

Secretary of Defense

Importance of Small Business
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• The Defense Small Business 

Webinar Series launched in 

April to help small businesses in 

the defense industrial base 

remain responsive during 

COVID-19 and beyond. 

• This virtual tool has helped 

deliver critical information and 

resources to thousands of 

participants.

SIGN UP FOR EMAILS

/BusinessDefense

business.defense.gov

4

Defense Small Business Webinar Series
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 5

Tips for Winning Contracts

Do Your Homework

• Arm yourself with information and facts.

Follow the Money

• Understand target customer’s spending priorities.

Find Your Niche 

• Target potential customers that buy what you sell – don’t market to everyone. 

Meet with Small Business Professionals

• Help identify prime contracting and subcontracting opportunities. 

Avoid Canned Presentations

• Do not promote generic capabilities. 

Be Specific

• Match your specific capability to a specific requirement and a specific customer. 

Demonstrate Utility

• Explain how your service or product has a positive impact on a project’s cost, schedule and performance. 

Identify Differentiators

• What makes you unique and better than the competition? 

Be Patient

• On average, it takes 18–24 months to award a federal government contract. 
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED 6

Contact Information

Office of Small Business Programs

Website: business.defense.gov

Phone: (571) 372-6191

4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 15G13

Alexandria, VA 22350

@BusinessDefense

/BusinessDefense
# Biological Threat Reduction Program Chemical Security and Elimination 

/ Published Aug. 1, 2023
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 40


                                  EXHIBIT 11

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                              CROWELL & CO., INC.


                                                Year ended December 31,
                                                ------------------------
                                                   1996          1995
                                                   ----          ----

NET LOSS                                        $  (13,153)   $ (703,480)

PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS                           80,952        80,952
                                                ----------    ----------

      NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON
        SHAREHOLDERS                            $  (94,105)   $ (784,432)
                                                ==========    ==========
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding                    2,520,835     2,520,835
  Primary earnings per share
    loss from continuing operations             $     (.13)   $     (.34)
    Income from discontinued operations                .09           .03
                                                ----------    ----------
      NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE                 $     (.04)   $    ( .31)
                                                ==========    ==========
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Wyoming EAVS Jurisdictions:

23 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

301,931 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

74,244 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

--

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

23,052 

Source of Registration Applications5 

In Person 92.5% 

Mail, Email, Fax 7.3% 

Other 0.2% 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 0.0% 

Online 0.0% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

45.8% In-Person 

Election Day 

122,114 

61.2% 

Mail 

38,164 

19.1% 

In-Person 

Early 

38,868 

19.5% 

Other 

362 

0.2% 

Total Voting Locations8: 209 

Total Poll Workers9: 2,089 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

91.3% 

Scanners 

21.7% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

4.3% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 44,711 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 85.7% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 99.6% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 0.5% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Did not allow ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

✔ Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
#### RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING PENSION TRUST FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES; Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICHAEL’S FLOOR COVERING, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16749

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed December 18, 2017

Donna L. Kirchner, Esquire, Counsel, Michael J. Korda, Katherine A. McDon-ough, Attorneys, George M. Kraw, Senior Attorney, Kraw Law Group, a Professional Corporation, Mountain View, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Candice Broock, Attorney, Robert B. Miller, Esquire, Attorney, Kilmer Voo-rhees & Laurick, P.C., Portland, OR, Andrew Bennett Downs, Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: KOZINSKI and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KEELEY,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court didn’t err in holding appellants must show that Michael’s Floor Covering, Inc. (“MFC”) had notice of Stu-der’s Floor Covering Inc.’s (“SFC”) withdrawal liability prior to becoming SFC’s successor to impose withdrawal liability on MFC. See Resilient Floor Covering Pension Tr. Fund Bd. of Trs. v. Michael’s Floor Covering, Inc., 801 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2015).

2. In employment cases, “[t]he principle [sic] reason for the notice requirement is to ensure fairness by guaranteeing that a successor had an opportunity to protect against liability by negotiating a lower price or indemnity clause.” Steinbach v. Hubbard, 51 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1995). Appellants argue that MFC had sufficient notice because it knew that some of SFC’s employees were unionized and SFC contributed to a pension fund. Appellants also claim that MFC had notice because a Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund trustee told MFC’s owner that “if the pension was fully funded as of today, I would go non-union the next day.” But this trustee was the owner of an entirely separate business in a different city and there’s no evidence that he had any ownership stake in MFC or SFC. These facts fail to show that MFC had notice of SFC’s withdrawal liability or “had an opportunity to protect against [it.]” Id.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.