alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kidd v. State

111,234

02/18/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
No. 12-5777.

#### Montgomery *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          85,642
<SECURITIES>                                    17,826
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,854
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,613
<PP&E>                                          78,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           234
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,188
<SALES>                                        256,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               256,280
<CGS>                                           95,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,834)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,575
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,209
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5559.

#### Castro-Ramirez *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies in their capacity as an officer of Kerzner International North America, Inc.
(the Company) that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the
period ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company for such period.

|Date: November 14, 2003 | /s/ John R. Allison    
|----------------------- | -----------------------
|                        | John R. Allison        
|                        | Chief Executive Officer

|Date: November 14, 2003 | /s/ Anne Robertson     
|----------------------- | -----------------------
|                        | Anne Robertson         
|                        | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023173EN.01001201.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 December 2022 — FSC v Banco Santander, S.A.

(Case C-794/22, Banco Santander)

(2023/C 173/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FSC

Respondent: Banco Santander, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 34(1)(a) and (b), read together with Article 53(1) and (3) as well as Article 60(2), first subparagraph, points (b) and (c), of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that the possible claim or right that arises from a judgment ordering payment of compensation given against the successor entity to Banco Popular Español, S.A. following an action for damages arising from the marketing of a financial product (subordinated bonds necessarily convertible into shares in the same bank) not included among the additional capital instruments to which the resolution measures for Banco Popular refer, which were ultimately converted into ordinary shares in the bank before the bank resolution measures were adopted (7 June 2017), could be considered a liability affected by the write-down or cancellation provision of Article 53(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU, as an ‘unaccrued’ obligation or claim, such that it would be discharged and would not be enforceable against Banco Santander, as the successor entity to Banco Popular, where the claim from which that judgment ordering payment of compensation arises was brought after the procedure for the resolution of the bank had been concluded?

Or, conversely, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the abovementioned claim or right constitutes an ‘accrued’ obligation or claim — Article 53(3) of the Directive — or ‘liability already accrued’ at the time of the resolution of the bank — Article 60(2)(b) — and, as such, excluded from the effects of the discharge or settlement of those obligations or claims, and, consequently, [that the abovementioned claim or right] is enforceable against Banco Santander, as the successor to Banco Popular, even where the claim from which that judgment ordering payment of compensation arises was brought after the procedure for the resolution of the bank had been concluded?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---
**EXHIBIT 21**

|SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY           | PLACE OF INCORPORATION
|------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|Autumn Rose Quarry, Inc.              | Georgia               
|Carolina Quarries, Inc.               | Delaware              
|Kabushiki Kaisha Rock of Ages Asia    | Japan                 
|Keith Monument Company LLC            | Delaware              
|Pennsylvania Granite Corporation      | Pennsylvania          
|Rock of Ages Canada, Inc.             | Canada                
|Rock of Ages Kentucky Cemeteries, LLC | Delaware              
|Rock of Ages Memorials, Inc.          | Delaware              
|Sioux Falls Monument Co.              | South Dakota          
|                                      |
# mecs03b
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                 4,111
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 735
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            27,288
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 1,538
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   1,432
<LOANS>                                79,065
<ALLOWANCE>                            768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              121,145
<DEPOSITS>                             100,728
<SHORT-TERM>                           0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         8,899
<LONG-TERM>                            163
<COMMON>                               252
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             11,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         121,145
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        1,631
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      456
<INTEREST-OTHER>                       10
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       2,097
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     986
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,115
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  982
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        300
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           242
<EPS-BASIC>                          .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                              3.78
<LOANS-NON>                            227
<LOANS-PAST>                           129
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        1,225
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       746
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          46
<RECOVERIES>                           9

<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      769
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   769
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                10


</TABLE>
#### State v. Ostrom

111,751

111,752

12/14/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00124

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.P.

,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Tex as

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 00878 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee has filed a brief in which she argues that Appellant’s brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8 by identifying M.J.P., a minor

, by name. Appellant’s brief does identify M.J.P. by name. Further, Appellant’s appendix contains a copy of the trial court ’s order

, which also identifies the minor by name. Thus, because Appellant’s brief violates Rule 9.8, we STRIKE Appellant’s brief. We ORDER Appellant to file on or before July 25, 2016 an amended brief (including an appendix) that complies with Rule 9.8. Appellant’ s amended brief may only be modified to comply with Rule 9.8. If Appellant does not file an amended brief complying

with Rule 9.8 in the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3( c). After Appellant’s amended brief is filed, Appellee may file any response within ten days of the filing of Appellant’s amended brief.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of July, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7738]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4230-N-01]


Federal Interagency Task Force on St. Petersburg Citizen's 
Advisory Commission: Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Department of Housing and Urban Development.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the upcoming meetings of the Federal 
Interagency Task Force on St. Petersburg Citizen's Advisory Commission. 
Notice of these meetings is required under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

MEETING DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, April 1, 1997 at 3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Enoch Davis Community Center, 1111 18th Avenue South, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33712.

PURPOSE: The agenda of this meeting consists of reports by the Federal 
Interagency Task Force Coordinator, State Interagency Coordinator and 
City Revitalization Coordinator. The Commission will vote to adopt the 
mission and goals statement and make recommendations on currently 
funded interagency programs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background. The Federal Interagency Task Force on St. Petersburg 
Citizen's Advisory Commission was established in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, and 
the implementing regulations of the General Services Administration 
(GSA), 41 CFR Part 101-6 to advise the Federal Department and agencies 
participating as members on the St. Petersburg Federal Task Force. 
Fifteen days advanced notice of this meeting could not be provided 
because of the desire of the Advisory Commission to expeditiously 
proceed with its business.
    Open Meeting. The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of 
the public may file a written statement concerning agenda items with 
the Commission. The statement should be addressed to the Federal 
Interagency Task Force on St. Petersburg Citizen's Advisory Commission, 
25 A 9th Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33705.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie A. Owens, Coordinator, 
Federal Interagency Task Force on St. Petersburg, 25 A 9th Street 
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33705, (813) 893-7201.

    Dated: March 6, 1997.
Stephanie A. Owens,
Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 97-7738 Filed 3-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-01-P
Exhibit
32(b)


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350





I,
Jeffrey R. Passmore, the principal financial officer of Hallmark Financial
Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 and filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. I further certify that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Date:  
August 16, 2010





/s/_Jeffrey R. PassmoreJeffrey
      R. Passmore,Principal
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                         ------------------------------

RRF Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership.

        Yuma Hospitality Properties, Ltd., an Arizona limited partnership.

        Northern Phoenix Investment Limited Partnership, an Arizona limited
        partnership.

        Tucson Hospitality Properties, Ltd., an Arizona limited partnership.

        Baseline Hospitality Properties, Ltd., an Arizona limited partnership.

        Ontario Hospitality Properties Limited Partnership, an Arizona limited
        partnership.

        Tucson St. Mary's Suite Hospitality LLC, an Arizona limited liability
        company.

        Buena Park Suite Hospitality LLC, an Arizona limited liability company.

        Albuquerque Suite Hospitality LLC, an Arizona limited liability company.
#### CHESTNUT HILL SOUND INC., Appellant v. APPLE, INC., Appellee

2017-1808

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 13, 2018

Aexis Faye Mosser, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Aso represented by Jason Dodd Cassady, Hamad M. Hamad.

Juanita Rose Brooks, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for appel-lee. Aso represented by John A. Drag-*1021seth, Mama Elena Stiteler, Minneapolis, MN.

(Lourie, O’Malley, and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.A.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.H. JR., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 427 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.H. JR., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 428 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.L.H. JR., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: B.H. JR., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 429 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.H. JR., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 430 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to the Form S-8 Registration Statement File No.
2-69991, into the Company's previously filed Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to
the Form S-8 Registration Statement File No. 2-66025, into the Company's
previously filed S-8 Registration Statement File No. 33-37366, into the
Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File No. 33-37367,
into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File No.
333-16725, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement
File No. 333-28839, and into the Company's previously filed Post Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 333-39559.




                                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas,
September 16, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7843]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under 
review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a 
copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the 
HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301)-443-1129.
    The following request has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995:

AIDS Education and Training Centers Program: National Program and 
Service Record Data Reporting Form (OMB No. 0915-0154)--Extension, No 
Change

    Under section 2692(a) of the Public Health Service Act, information 
on training programs and training participants is obtained from 15 AIDS 
Education Training Centers (ETCs) currently operating in health 
professions schools and academic health science centers. The goal of 
the AIDS ETC program is to increase the number of health care providers 
who are effectively educated and motivated to counsel, diagnose, treat 
and manage individuals with HIV infection and to assist in the 
prevention of high risk behaviors which may lead to infection. The 
National Program and Service Record Data Reporting (NPSR) Form is used 
by ETCs to provide standardized reporting of project activities for 
Federal program monitoring. The burden estimates are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of      Responses per      Hours per       Total burden 
                    Form                        respondents       respondent        response          hours     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPSR........................................              15                2               84            2,520 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: 
Virginia Huth, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management 
and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 
20503.

    Dated: March 12, 1997.
J. Henry Montes,
Director, Office of Policy and Information Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-7843 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51027 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN JUAREZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Juan Lucio Juarez-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-828-ALL-PRM

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Juarez-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Juarez-Sanchez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-51027 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Juarez-Sanchez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Juarez-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### State v. Camacho

111,183

111,184

111,185

111,186

02/09/2016

Denied. ..

Unpublished
#### Miller v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm’rs

111,569

01/25/2016

Granted.

51 Kan. App. 2d 644
#### REGINA STEEDLEY ET AL. *v.*ROLAND L. PRATT, JR., ET AL.

(AC 34422)

Alvord, Keller and Harper, Js.

Argued April 22

officially released May 7, 2013

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
Order filed December 15

, 2011

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 1 1

- 0 0 831

- CR

____________

JORGE ALBERTO GARIVALDI

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 77 th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1309850



### O R D E R

The reporter ' s reco rd in this case was due November 2 1 , 2011 See Tex. R. App. P.

35.2. Janet Ragan has not filed the reporter's record. Janet Ragan has not filed an

extension of time to file the reporter's record. We therefore issue the following order.

We order Janet Ragan to file the record in this appeal on or before January 17,

201 2

.

PER CURIAM