alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 10520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04009]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2014-6004]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals Submissions, 
and Approvals

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 92-27 Report of Overdue Accounts Under Short-Term 
Policies
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection provides Ex-Im Bank 
staff with the information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments 
for exported goods covered under its short and medium-term export 
credit insurance policies. It also alerts Ex-Im Bank staff of defaults, 
so they can manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
    Form can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-27.pdf.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014, to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank 
of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-27 Report of Overdue Accounts Under 
Short-Term Policies.
    OMB Number: 3048-0027.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The collection provides Ex-Im Bank staff with the 
information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments for exported 
goods covered under its short- and medium term export credit insurance 
policies. It also alerts Ex-Im Bank staff of defaults, so they can 
manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 745.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Government Annual Burden Hours: 186.25 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Monthly.
    Government Reviewing Time per Year: 1,117.5.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $47,494.
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $56,993.

Bonita Jones-McNeil,
Records Management Analyst, Records Management Division, Office of the 
Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-04009 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
Exhibit 10.01

 

2011 ANNUAL BASE SALARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS FOR

PAY PERIODS ENDING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2011.

 

	
Name and Principal Position
    	
 
    	
Year
    	
 
    	
Salary
   ($)
    	
 
    
	
Steven C. Barre
    	
 
    	
2011
    	
 
    	
240,000
    	
 
    
	
Interim Chief Executive Officer   and Director
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Charles F. Kuehne
    	
 
    	
2011
    	
 
    	
240,000
    	
 
    
	
Interim Chief Financial Officer
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
James E .May
    	
 
    	
2011
    	
 
    	
200,000
    	
 
    
	
Chief Administrative Officer and   General Counsel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wyatt McMahon, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 23]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered December 22, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (2 counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years, 2 to 4 years and 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. “Given that defendant was in possession of the stolen property while he was engaged in [a struggle with the victim], the jury was entitled to infer that his purpose in using force was to retain control of the stolen property, not merely to escape or defend himself’ *(People v Brandley,*254 AD2d 185, *lv denied*92 NY2d 1028). Moreover, the fact that defendant continued to hold onto the stolen items as he fled further undermines his claim that he used force only to free himself from the victim.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling, which suppressed much of defendant’s extensive criminal record, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459).

The court’s summary denial of defendant’s application for assignment of new counsel was appropriate. Defendant made this application for the first time after a jury had been selected and preliminary instructions given. He offered only conclusory statements about counsel’s purported deficiencies.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lori L. PULTS, Appellant.

No. ED 105734

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: October 9, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 14, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 29, 2019

Casey A. Taylor, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg 7, Suite 100, Saint Louis, MO. 65203, for appellant.

Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Lori L. Pults ("Pults") appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which she was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and an associated count of armed criminal action. On appeal, Pults argues the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress statements made during her police interview and in admitting testimony at trial regarding her statements because police interrogated her after she made a clear and unambiguous request for counsel. Pults argues the admission of the statements violated her Fifth Amendment right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5449 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining requirements 

for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2006 

Mr. LATOURETTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining 

requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL. 

4 Paragraph (2) of section 40122(a) of title 49, United 

5 States Code, is repealed. 

6 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The amendment made by section 1 shall be effective 

8 as of April 1, 2006, including with respect to any proposed 

9 changes to the personnel management system of the FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:34 May 24, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5449.IH H5449

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 5449 IH 

1 eral Aviation Administration that were transmitted to 

2 Congress, on or after that date and before the date of en3 actment of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of 

4 section 40122(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, as 

5 last in effect. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cosi, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003, of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/s/ Kenneth S. Betuker
-----------------------
Kenneth S. Betuker
Chief Financial Officer
August 14,  2003


                                    Page 32
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00030 - CR PHILLIP VELAZQUEZ , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . 2017 - 411,477 , Honorable William R. Eichman II , Presiding 

### March 9 , 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ . Appellant Phillip Velazquez, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court ’ s order denying his “Motion to Reduce Ba il.” We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The minimal record before th e C ourt reflects that Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery. On December 15 , 2020, A ppellant’s trial counsel filed a motion to2

reduce Appellant’s bail from $250,000 to $10,000. The trial court denied the motion in a letter ruling dated January 21, 2021. Appellant appealed from the order, pro se. In criminal cases, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment of conviction or where jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696 - 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because an order denying a motion to reduce bail is neither a judgment of con viction nor an order from which an appeal is specifically authorized by law, we have no jurisdiction over its appeal. 1 Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( “ There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of a ppeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail. ” ); Keaton v. State , 294 S.W.3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.
— Beaumont 2009, no pet.) ( “ [T] he Legislature did not provide appellate jurisdiction over a direct appeal fr om an interlocutory pretrial order involving bail
. ” ). By letter of February 1 1, 2021, we directed Appellant to file a response showing how we have jurisdiction over this appeal by February 22 . Appellant has not filed a response to our letter to date. Ac cordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Per Curiam Do not publish.

1 We note that this is not an appeal from the trial court’s denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking bail reduction. See Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist ., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 - 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( “ [W] e have also long recognized the separateness of pre conviction habe as proceedings by permitting an immediate appeal from a denial of relief, before the trial proceedings in a criminal prosecution have been concluded .” ).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clayton D. REEHTEN, Appellant.

No. ED 105901

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: October 30, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 3, 2018

FOR APPELLANTS: Irene C. Karns, 503 E. Nifong #212, Columbia, Missouri 65201.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Garrick Aplin, Joshua D. Hawley, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Clayton Reehten appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial finding him guilty of the class D felony of resisting arrest, for which he was sentenced to a term of seven years' imprisonment.1 Reehten contends that the trial court abused its discretion in submitting the verdict director for his felony conviction because it presented to the jury a different offense than any with which he had been charged and therefore violated his due process rights. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.

1

Reehten was also found guilty in the same proceeding of the class A misdemeanor of resisting a lawful stop and sentenced to a concurrent term of one year in prison, and was acquitted of three counts of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, J. Russell Porter,
Chief Executive Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the year three months ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), filed by the Company with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with the requirements of that section.

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: May 12, 2006



/s/ J. RUSSELL PORTERJ. Russell Porter Chief Executive Officer


|
|
exv10w28









EXHIBIT 10.28




November 30, 2009




Mr. David Carlson

Chief Financial Officer

LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.

17634 NE Airport Way

Portland, OR 97230




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Re:
	 	Amended and Restated Credit Agreement between LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.
	 

	 	 	 	(“Borrower”) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Lender”), dated as of
March 1, 2009, as amended (“Credit Agreement”)





Dear Dave:




     This letter confirms that, the provisions of the Loan Documents to the contrary
notwithstanding, the additional investment by Borrower or Danner of up to $2,900,000 in connection
with a new factory for Danner (the “Danner Factory”) that is referred to in Section 5.3 of the
Credit Agreement may be made in 2009, 2010, or spread between both years, provided, however, that
the amount by which aggregate capital expenditures for the two years exceeds the $5,000,000 annual
limitation referred to in Section 5.3 is not greater than $2,500,0000, inclusive of investments
made in connections with the Danner Factory. In all other respects, the Loan Documents remain in
full force and effect without change.



     Terms that are used in this letter are defined in the Credit Agreement have the same meaning
in this letter that they are given in the Credit Agreement.



     The foregoing consent shall take effect when we receive an original or photocopy of a
signature of an authorized officer of Danner where indicated below.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,





WELLS FARGO BANK, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

 	 
	 	/s/ James R. Bednark
 	 
	 	James R. Bednark 	 
	 	Senior Vice President 	 



 









 






	 	 	 	 	 


The undersigned acknowledged and consents to the foregoing, and agrees that it shall not prejudice
its obligations and the security interest granted under the Third Part Security Agreement granted
by the undersigned in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, dated as of April 15, 2004,
as amended, which are hereby reaffirmed in all respects.



DATED as of November 30, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DANNER INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Joseph P. Schneider
 	 
	 	Joseph P. Schneider 	 
	 	President /Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ David Carlson
 	 
	 	David Carlson 	 
	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
And Secretary
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DENNIS C. SMITH; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17419

D.C. No. 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-SMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2011** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Elonza Jesse Tyler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

NOV 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17419

§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000);

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm in

part, reverse in part, and remand. 

The district court properly dismissed Tyler’s claims against defendant Erly

because Tyler failed to allege facts to show that Erly was deliberately indifferent to

his medical needs. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)

(standard to state claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994) (a prison official must know of and disregard an excessive risk of harm to a

prisoner’s health to be liable under the Eighth Amendment). 

However, a review of the complaint indicates that Tyler had stated a claim for

deliberate indifference against defendant Smith regarding the delays in orthopedic

treatment of his knee injury. Tyler alleged facts to show that, as a result of his

grievances and appointments with Smith, Smith was aware of Tyler’s pain and

mobility problems, but delayed in referring Tyler to an orthopedist. See Jett v.

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096-98 (9th Cir. 2006) (delay of treatment for serious

medical need about which inmate filed medical slips and grievances can amount to

deliberate indifference if the delay leads to further injury or unnecessary pain).

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment as to this claim and remand

for further proceedings.
3 10-17419

Tyler’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                               Percentage of
           Parent                      Subsidiary                Ownership
----------------------------    -----------------------    --------------------
<S>                             <C>                        <C>
Bay View Capital Corporation    Bay View Federal Bank,             100%
                                A Federal Savings Bank
Bay View Capital Corporation    Bay View Securitization            100%
                                Corporation
Bay View Capital Corporation    Regent Financial                   100%
                                Corporation
Bay View Federal Bank           MoneyCare, Inc.                    100%
Bay View Federal Bank           Bay View Financial                 100%
                                Corporation
Bay View Financial              Bay View Auxiliary                 100%
 Corporation                    Corporation
Bay View Financial              Bay Counties Insurance             100%
 Corporation                    Agency, Inc.
Bay View Financial              Carquinez Reserve, Inc.            100%
 Corporation
</TABLE>

The financial statements of the Registrant are consolidated with those of its
subsidiaries.
Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers of C&F Financial Corporation



 Exhibit 10.16 
 BASE SALARIES FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
 OF 

 C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 The following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) in effect as of January 1, 2010 of the named executive officers of C&F Financial Corporation: 
  

				
	 Larry G. Dillon
	  	$	253,000
	 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
	  		
		
	 Thomas F. Cherry
	  	$	205,000
	 Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	  		
		
	 Bryan E. McKernon
	  	$	195,000
	 President and Chief Executive Officer of C&F Mortgage Corporation
EXHIBIT 32.2 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**J. ROEBUCKLEY / CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P. (the“Registrant”), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section. 

 

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 13, 2016

Order 

Clerk

May 13, 2016

153454(69)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 153454

v COA: 324082

Wayne CC: 14-002959-FC

CARL SEARS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing a reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on May 9, 2016, is accepted for 

filing.