alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 08-5111 September Term 2010

1:03-cv-00948-RCL

Filed On: August 31, 2011

David M. Bowie,

Appellant

v.

Charles C. Maddox, Inspector General, in his

official and individual capacity, et al.,

Appellees

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, Brown, Circuit Judge, and Williams, Senior 

 Circuit Judge

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc which, because

it seeks relief under Rules 35 and 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we

construe as a petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing be denied for the reasons set

forth in the accompanying opinion. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark 

Deputy Clerk
#### In the Matter of Susan S. Needles, Respondent-Appellant, v Carl F. Needles, Appellant-Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered November 17, 1983, which, *inter alia,*directed the father to increase child support payments for his daughter from $150 per week to $175 per week, and to pay child support in the amount of $75 per week for his son.

Order modified, on the facts, by increasing the award of child support payable by the father for the parties’ son from $75 per week to $150 per week. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties, who are still married, took up separate residences in 1977, at which time each of them retained custody of one of their two children. Subsequently, on January 24, 1978, a support order was entered in the Family Court, Nassau County *757(Kutner, J.), directing the respondent to pay $150 per week for support of the one child (a daughter) residing with the petitioner mother. On or about June 10,1982, the parties’ remaining child (a son) elected to leave his father and move in with his mother.

In the instant proceeding, the mother requested an increase in the amount of child support payable to her for the support of her daughter, as well as an initial award of child support with respect to the son. The matter was referred for a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 439, and on June 16, 1983, the referee rendered a report in which he recommended, *inter alia,*that child support for the daughter be increased by $25 to $175 per week, and that the father be directed to pay $150 per week for the support of his son. The Family Court (Diamond, J.) accepted the former recommendation, but rejected the latter, and ordered the father to pay $75 per week for the support of his son. These appeals followed.

The evidence adduced at the hearing amply demonstrated a change of circumstances warranting the modest $25 per week increase in the award of child support for the daughter *(see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts,*56 NY2d 132,141), and so much of the order appealed from as granted such an increase should therefore be affirmed. Regarding the accompanying award of child support for the son, however, the award was insufficient. A proper consideration of the relative financial resources of the parents, the physical and emotional health of the child, his legitimate educational and vocational needs, and the standard of living which the child would have enjoyed had the family remained intact all warrant the indicated increase *(see,*Family Ct Act § 413; *Matter of Chauvin v Chauvin,*78 AD2d 697).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
SNV_Exhibit 10.35_12.31.2014






Exhibit 10.35


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP.
Board of Directors Compensation
(Effective April 24, 2014)


	
					
	Cash Compensation
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Annual Board Retainer
	 
	$
	45,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	Annual Board Committee Member Retainers:
	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	 
	$
	15,000
	


	Compensation Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	Risk Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	Annual Committee Chair Retainers:**
	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	 
	$
	15,000
	


	Compensation Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	Risk Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	Annual Lead Director Retainer
	 
	$
	10,000
	


	 
	 
	 

	**    Note: The committee chair will receive both an annual committee member retainer and an annual committee chair retainer

	 
	 
	 

	Equity Compensation
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	An award of $40,000 in restricted stock units, which becomes fully vested and transferable upon the earlier to occur of the (x) completion of three years of service and (y) date the holder reaches age 72.
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Director Stock Purchase Plan
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Annual maximum company cash contribution per director participant to company-sponsored open market stock purchase plan, with company's contribution equal to 15% of director participant's cash contribution, subject to annual maximum contribution limit by director of $20,000
	$
	3,000
#### Alice M. Kalandyk *v.*John M. Kalandyk

*JohnM. Kalandyk,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided November 29, 1989

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 801, is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6203

CORNELIUS JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH; ALBERTO GONZALES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:05-cv-00439-DCN) Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelius Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cornelius Jones filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), which the district court construed as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Jones appeals this order and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. Although the district court construed the § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion, Jones clearly intended to file a § 2241 petition. Jones asserts on appeal that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention and contends that his claims should be considered in the context of his § 2241 petition. Because Jones does not meet the standard set forth in In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the denial of relief and the court’s denial of Jones’ motion for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 88A/24 t

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 88A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 6524 ta' Frar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 88A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 6524 ta' Frar 2022

---

| Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Avviżi |
| | PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI |
| | Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea |
| 2022/C 88 A/01 | Avviż li jemenda l-Impriża Konġunta Inizjattiva għal Saħħa Innovattiva (IHI JU) — Il-pubblikazzjoni ta’ post vakanti għall-kariga ta’ Direttur Eżekuttiv tal-Impriża Konġunta Inizjattiva għal Saħħa Innovattiva (IHI JU) (Aġent Temporanju — Grad AD 14) — COM/2022/20075 ( ĠU C 48 A, 31.1.2022 ) | 1 |

Werrej

Paġna

V   Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea

2022/C 88 A/01

Avviż li jemenda l-Impriża Konġunta Inizjattiva għal Saħħa Innovattiva (IHI JU) — Il-pubblikazzjoni ta’ post vakanti għall-kariga ta’ Direttur Eżekuttiv tal-Impriża Konġunta Inizjattiva għal Saħħa Innovattiva (IHI JU) (Aġent Temporanju — Grad AD 14) — COM/2022/20075 ( ĠU C 48 A, 31.1.2022 )

( ĠU C 48 A, 31.1.2022 )

1

---

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

V Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea

| 24.2.2022 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2022

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 88/1

---

Avviż li jemenda l-Impriża Konġunta “Inizjattiva għal Saħħa Innovattiva” (IHI JU) — Il-pubblikazzjoni ta’ post vakanti għall-kariga ta’ Direttur Eżekuttiv tal-Impriża Konġunta “Inizjattiva għal Saħħa Innovattiva” (IHI JU) (Aġent Temporanju — Grad AD 14) — COM/2022/20075

(
  Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 48 A tal-31 ta’ Jannar 2022
  )

(2022/C 88 A/01)

Fil-paġna 5, “Data tal-għeluq”, l-ewwel paragrafu,

| minflok: | “Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija it-28 ta’ Frar 2022, 12.00 p.m. (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”, |
| --- | --- |

minflok:

“Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija it-28 ta’ Frar 2022, 12.00 p.m. (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”,

| aqra: | “Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija l-14 ta’ Marzu 2022, 12.00 p.m. (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”. |
| --- | --- |

aqra:

aqra:

“Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni hija l-14 ta’ Marzu 2022, 12.00 p.m. (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell, u wara din id-data ma jkunx iktar possibbli li tirreġistra.”.

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2405

To suspend temporarily the duty on NOA 466510 Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2005

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on NOA 466510 Technical.

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

3 SECTION 1. NOA 466510 TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.09.24 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-

(2-

propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-α-

(2-

propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide (CAS 

No. 374726–62–2) (provided 

for in subheading 

2924.29.47) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 2405 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2415

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the penalty provided 

for the sexual abuse of a minor or ward. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2005

Mr. SNYDER (for himself and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the 

penalty provided for the sexual abuse of a minor or ward.

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

3 That section 2243(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘one year’’ and inserting ‘‘five 

5 years’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 32 (ii)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, BrianL. Knepp, Vice President of Finance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Brian L. Knepp                                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian  L. Knepp                                            |
| Vice  President of Finance and Principal Financial Officer |
|                                                       |
| November   7, 2007                                    |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appea ls

San Antonio, Texas

January 18, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00768

- CV

Jana Lee FLANAGAN and Lucas Matthew Flanagan

,

Appellants

v.

RBD SAN ANTONIO L.P. , Davidson Hotel Company, LLC and G4S Secure Solutions (USA),

Inc.,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 18601

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellants’ motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 18th day of January, 20 18

.

___________________________ ________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kenneth E.
Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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
Company.



/s/ Kenneth E. Edge
-----------------------
Kenneth E. Edge
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2005



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          58,728
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         550,802
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           550,802
<LOANS>                                      1,042,416
<ALLOWANCE>                                     15,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,708,702
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,248,268
<SHORT-TERM>                                   232,650
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,525
<LONG-TERM>                                     36,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           903
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,708,702
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,604
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,577
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   298
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,479
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,191
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,074
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,405
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,407
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 352
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,108
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,500
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.18
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,699
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,610
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    10
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    369
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,473
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      976
<RECOVERIES>                                       293
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               15,197
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            15,197
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 17, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00741-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF V.M.G., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-05067

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this appeal has not been filed because appellant has not requested 

it. By letter dated August 22, 2018, we directed appellant to file, within ten days, written 

verification she had requested the record. Although we cautioned appellant that failure to 

comply could result in the appeal being submitted without the reporter’s record, appellant has not 

complied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted without 

the reporter’s record. See id.

As the clerk’s record has been filed, we ORDER appellant to file her brief no later than 

October 16, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### John Danner and another *vs.*Augustus R. Capehart.

July 18, 1889.

Stay of Proceedings — Order without Notice. — An order of the district court in an action, made without notice to the opposite party, where he is entitled to it, is not void, only irregular.

Same — Vacating Judgment — Discretion.—The matter of temporarily staying proceedings in an action is ordinarily in the discretion of the court; so, also, is the matter of setting aside a judgment on the ground that its entry ought to have been temporarily stayed.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, *Kelly,*J., presiding, denying his motion to set aside a judgment. The return to this court does not show the nature of the action or of the judgment.

*O. E. Holman,*for appellant.

*J. F. Merrill,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

This cause was referred for trial, and, having been tried, the referee made his report finding the facts, and directing judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and was about to file the same, when, on August 8, 1888, the court below, on the application of defendant, without notice to plaintiffs, made an order staying all proceedings in the cause for 20 days after written notice to defendant’s attorney of the filing of the report with the clerk. On October 24th the court, on plaintiffs’ application, without notice, made an order vacating the prior order. The first of these orders was erroneous, because it was made without notice, and was for a stay for more than 20 days. The second order was erroneous because the defendant was entitled to, but did not have, notice of the application for it; but, though irregular or erroneous, it was not void, and while it remained in force it had the effect to vacate the prior order. On October 27th judgment in favor of plaintiffs was entered on the report of the referee. November 10th defendant made application for an order setting aside the judgment, which application was refused, and he appeals from the order refusing it to this court.

*295As the order of October 24th was not void, the entry of judgment was technically correct. It did not stand, therefore, on the same footing as a judgment wrongfully entered, and the defendant did not have a legal right to have it set aside. The matter of staying proceedings in an action temporarily, rests, ordinarily, very much in the discretion of the court, not only when an application for such a stay is made, but also, if a stay has been granted, when an application to vacate the stay is made; and the matter of setting aside a judgment on the ground that its entry ought to have been temporarily stayed, especially if a stay has been prevented through irregularities in practice, is likewise in thp discretion of the court. We see no reason for supposing that the court below did not' properly exercise its discretion in the present instance.

Order affirmed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2261 

To extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion exchange resin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on a certain ion exchange 

resin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ION EXCHANGE RESIN COMPRISING A 

4 COMPOLYMER OF STYRENE CROSSLINKED 

5 WITH ETHENYLBENZENE, 

6 AMINOPHOSPHONIC ACID SODIUM FORM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.33 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

9 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2261 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ