alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5410]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11686 and <greek-i>11687]


Indiana Disaster <greek-i>IN-00029

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana (FEMA--
1828--DR), dated 03/05/2009.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: 01/26/2009 through 01/28/2009.
    Dates: Effective Date: 03/05/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/04/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/05/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/05/2009, Private non-
profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Clark, Crawford, Dubois, Floyd Gibson, Harrison, 
Jackson, Jefferson, Orange, Perry, Spencer, Switzerland, Vanderburgh, 
Warrick, Washington

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11686B 
and for economic injury is 11687B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-5410 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Andre T. BLOCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80575

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: May 29, 2018

Susan L. Hogan, District Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Julia E. Neidhardt, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and Gary D. Witt and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Andre T. Blocker appeals from the ruling of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying his amended Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Jacob L. RAGLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105736

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: May 29, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory L. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Jacob Ragland appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Ragland raises three points on appeal claiming the motion court erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) untimely requesting jurors be allowed to take notes, (2) failing to examine various witnesses regarding one of the victims, J.F., seeing his mother ("Mother"), engage in sexual intercourse, and (3) failing to examine various witnesses regarding J.F. watching pornography. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1         
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1  
<CASH>                                           1,041,242  
<SECURITIES>                                        50,000  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,596,004  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,157,421  
<INVENTORY>                                      4,278,601  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,532,910  
<PP&E>                                          31,615,494  
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,986,893  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,814,850  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,151,206  
<BONDS>                                                  0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0  
<PREFERRED>                                              0  
<COMMON>                                             1,948  
<OTHER-SE>                                        (583,393) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,814,850  
<SALES>                                                  0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,436,553  
<CGS>                                                    0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,754,290  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (216,934) 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,867,575  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,068,378) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,051,698) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,016,680) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,016,680) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (5.86) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (5.86) 
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Department of Justice Civil Division Directive (28 CFR part 14) and 10 U.S.C. 113(d), the Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force the authority to adjust, determine, compromise, and settle administrative claims involving their respective Military Departments under 28 U.S.C. 2672 (relating to the administrative settlement of Federal tort claims), if the amount of the proposed settlement, compromise, or award does not exceed $300,000. 

The Delegation to the Secretary of the Army includes the authority to adjust, determine, compromise, and settle administrative claims arising out of the acts or omissions of civilian personnel of DoD Components other than the Military Departments in accordance with DoD Directive 5515.9, “Settlement of Tort Claims,” April 19, 2004. 

The authority delegated above may be re-delegated in writing. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms Patricia Toppings, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, Rosslyn Plaza North, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. 

Dated: March 12, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9-5709 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 10, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14145

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-21321-CV-AJ

CARLOS CASANOVA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

JORGE LUIS MORALES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(January 10, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We find no error in the District Court’s determination that Carlos Casanova

has failed to establish coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§
2

201-216, and thus, the Summary Judgment in favor of Jorge Luis Morales is 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE LEGEND CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VINEYARD NATIONAL BANCORP AND
SUBSIDIARY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,026,509
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,725,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  8,201,178
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     91,798,452
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (677,267)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,233,319
<DEPOSITS>                                 107,787,643
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,359,715
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,106,258
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,979,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             117,233,319
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,551,026
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              292,637
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               155,012
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,998,675
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,298,495
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,304,045
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,694,630
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   78,782
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,057)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,476,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                369,602
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   221,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   5.000
<LOANS-NON>                                    329,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   253,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              3,271,824
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               727,667
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  270,661
<RECOVERIES>                                   141,479
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              677,267
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           677,267
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
exv10w13






Exhibit 10.13




Exhibit 10.13




     The following current executive officers have entered into Executive Severance Agreements with
the Company in the form filed herewith. The information listed below is inserted into the blanks
for the respective executive officer’s Executive Severance Agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Salary Multiplier	 	 	 	 	 	 	Change of Control	 
	 	 	Rate	 	 	Termination Period	 	 	Continuation Period	 
	 	 	(Section 4(a)(4))	 	 	(Section 1(a))	 	 	(Section 2)	 
	Blake W. Krueger
	 	 	3	 	 	3 years	 	36 months
	Kenneth A. Grady
	 	 	2	 	 	2 years	 	24 months
	Donald T. Grimes
	 	 	2	 	 	2 years	 	24 months
	Pamela L. Linton
	 	 	2	 	 	2 years	 	24 months
	Michael F. McBreen
	 	 	2	 	 	2 years	 	24 months
	James D. Zwiers
	 	 	2	 	 	2 years	 	24 months
## OFFICE STAN COUNTY CLERK, COUNTY, TEXAS 

## COUNTY CIVIL COURTS DEPARTMENT 5, 2015 CourtofAppeals 301 Fannin · 

## Texas77002 SUBJ: Non—PaymentofClerk’s Record REF: #14-14-00941-CV /Trial Court#1053195 Court # Three (3) 

## SHELLI R WHEELER VS. EK & AC ENTERPRISES, INC. This letteristo informyou appellant, EK & AC Inc., has notpaid forthe Original C1erk’s Record inthe above referenced case. The appellant’s attorney was by mailed ofthe costforthe Record on December 2014. As of January 5, 2015, no fees have been posted for this Record. IfI can be of any further assistance contact me at 755-9425. The original letter will be electronically with the

CourtofAppeals onJanuary 2015. Sincerely,Stan 

### Stanart County Clerk:2: /S/Joshua Alegria 

## JoshuaAlegria · Deputy Clerk

_

P.O. Box 1525 Houston, TX 77251-1525 (713) 755-6421 FormNo. 1-1-01-306

(Rev.08/15/2011) Page 1ofl 

# 1on 12/1/2014 3:04:48 PM OFFICE OF STAN STANART COUNTY CLERK, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CIVIL COURTS DEPARTMENT

COST LETTER December 1, 2014 Theadore R. Andrews 5177 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1275 Houston, Texas 77056 RE: DOCKET NO. 1053195, COUNTY COURT AT LAW Three (3) 

### SHELLIEWHEELER

vs. EK & AC ENTERPRISES, INC. Dear Theadore R. Andrews,

In accordance to TRAP 35.3(a), I am notifying you that is for the ofthe Clerk’s Record from the Notice of Appeal that was filed on November 21, 2014. Please remit payment in the form of cash, cashier check, credit card, or money order checks will not be payable to STAN STANART, County Clerk. If you have any questions about the Record contact me at (713) 755-9425. Sincerely, STAN STANART, County Clerk

Alegria Deputy Clerk1>.o.

1525 I TX I (713) (Rev. 04/29/2011) 1 of 1 

# 2
exv10w8w1






EXHIBIT 10.8.1



Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon Corporation
(“Visteon”) and each of the persons named below, to the Executive Officer Change in Control
Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.8 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Visteon for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.




      Name




Donald J. Stebbins


William G. Quigley III
Theodis HOLMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105481

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: July 10, 2018

Susan A. DeGeorge, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.

Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Theodis Holmes ("Holmes") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following an evidentiary hearing. A jury found Holmes guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Holmes charges the motion court with error for denying his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims because trial counsel did not object when the trial court allowed the jury to view State's Exhibit 2 during deliberations and did not seek to have a sleeping juror removed from the jury panel and replaced with an alternate juror. Because Holmes did not establish the requisite prejudice by the jury's viewing of State's Exhibit 2 during deliberations, and because trial counsel exercised reasonable trial strategy in not seeking to remove the juror in question, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00430-CR

____________________

RICKY DUANE MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-2705

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In January of 2008, Ricky Duane Martinez was indicted on a third-degree 

felony count of driving while intoxicated, third or more. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 

§§ 49.04, 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2016).1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Martinez

pleaded guilty. In October of 2008, the trial court convicted Martinez and assessed 

his punishment at eight years’ confinement, suspended imposition of sentence, 

 

1 We cite to the current version of the statutes because subsequent 

amendments do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2

placed Martinez on community supervision for eight years, and assessed a fine of 

$1,000. 

In May of 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke Martinez’s community 

supervision, and the State amended the motion in July of 2016. Martinez pleaded

“[n]ot true[]” to violating four conditions of his community supervision. In October 

of 2016, after a revocation hearing during which the court heard testimony and 

evidence, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Martinez

violated three conditions of his community supervision, revoked Martinez’s

community supervision, and imposed a sentence of four years’ confinement. After 

the court certified Martinez’s right of appeal, Martinez timely filed a notice of 

appeal.

Martinez’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and there are no 

meritorious claims for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time 

for Martinez to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Martinez.

We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree 

with Martinez’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. 

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief 
3

Martinez’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on July 27, 2017

Opinion Delivered August 2, 2017

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

 

2 Martinez may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Raymond L. Lawless,
Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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
Companies.



|                       |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Raymond L. Lawless                    
|                       |  | Raymond L. Lawless Chief Financial
Officer

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.