alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Corn Host Plant Resistance Research: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Mississippi State, Mississippi Crop Science Research Laboratory Corn Host Plant Resistance Research People & Locations







Robin W Jordan
                        Corn Host Plant Resistance Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (662) 320-7547
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Union Labor Life Insurance Co., Respondent, v Levien, Rich & Co., P. C., Appellant.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Burstein, J.), entered on or about June 13, 1985, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Burstein, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur —Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (14,711)
<INVENTORY>                                        437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,172
<PP&E>                                          37,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,739)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,710
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           368
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,061
<SALES>                                        162,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,433
<CGS>                                          115,838
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)


</TABLE>
(February 24, 1986)

#### In the Matter of Peter J. Enzien, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

—Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves to confirm in part and disaffirm in *928part the report of the Referee which, following a hearing, sustained one of the two charges of professional misconduct contained in the petition. Respondent, an attorney admitted to practice by this court in 1961 who at the time of the occurrences herein maintained a law office in the City of Troy, cross-moves for similar relief.

The first charge contained in the petition alleges that respondent neglected an estate matter by failing to collect rents and failing to take steps to settle the estate. We agree with the conclusion of the Referee that, under the circumstances presented, it has not been established that respondent was guilty of professional misconduct in connection with this matter.

The second charge also alleges neglect on respondent’s part in that, while serving as Corporation Counsel for the City of Mechanicville during 1981, he failed to timely serve an answer on the city’s behalf in a negligence action which resulted in a default judgment being taken against the city. The Referee found respondent guilty of this charge after noting that several extensions of time to file the answer had been granted and that respondent voluntarily paid the sum of $9,500 representing the city’s share of the settlement of the action. Since this finding is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing *(see, Matter of Capoccia,*59 NY2d 549), we grant petitioner’s motion to confirm as to this charge.

While it is true that the City of Mechanicville was not ultimately prejudiced by respondent’s neglect, we nevertheless believe that the circumstances warrant the imposition of discipline and conclude that censure is an appropriate sanction.

Motion by petitioner granted only to the extent of confirming the Referee’s report insofar as it sustains charge II of the petition; motion in all other respects denied.

Respondent censured. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
Minute Order Form (0697)

ok

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

se Magistrate Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. “nan Ase ude
CASE NUMBER olc 9746 paTE|  abtee 2002
CASE Jonathan Lightfoot v City Colleges of Chicago
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due __
(3) oOo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) oa Ruling/Hearingon__—setfor___at
() Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor ss at_—
[) ia) Trial[set for/re-set for] on__ at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_ at.
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (OGeneral Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) [J FRCP41(a)(2).
0M tonerdoaeenny THOERESEL Dag accented, de Oe ctFee, SeapvamenTM
Clerk shall enter Rule 58 judgment for Plaintiff.
al) oa [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
‘ number of notices

& B.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.
K Mail AO 450 form.

wLsid Sn

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

20:4 Hd 21 WT 20

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

Cohchiat etal at

central Clerk’s Office

mailing deputy initials
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.3A
 
                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This Amendment (the "Amendment") is entered into and made effective as of
the 1st day of August, 1998 and amends that certain Employment Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated as of May 9, 1997 between fine.com International Corp., a
Washington corporation f/k/a fine.com Corporation (the "Company"), and Daniel M.
Fine (the "Employee").

     The parties hereby agree as follows:

     1.  The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Agreement is amended to read
as follows:

     "For all services rendered by Employee under this Agreement, including
     directors' fees, if any, Employer will pay Employee a base salary of One
     Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($140,000) per year (the "Base Salary")."

     2.  Except as amended above, the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect as though set forth in this Amendment.

     DATED as of the date first above written.

EMPLOYEE:                 fine.com International Corp.



/s/ Daniel M. Fine        By:  /s/ James P. Chamberlin
------------------             ------------------------
Daniel M. Fine                 James P. Chamberlin
                               Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6206** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIMOTHY ROOSEVELT EVANS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00054

- FL

- 1; 5:12

- cv - 00290

- FL )

Submitted : January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Roosevelt Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, Jennifer E. Wells, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for App ellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Roosevelt Evans appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Evans , No s . 5: 08

- cr - 00054

- FL

- 1, 5:12

- cv - 00 290

- FL ( E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2014 ) ; see Whiteside v. United States , ___ F.3d ___ , 2014 WL 7245453 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2014) (en banc)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 24-50125 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Victor Ines Rosales-Ramirez, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-1865-1

______________________________ Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appoin ted to represent Victor RosalesRamirez has moved to withdr aw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rosales-Ramirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-50125 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024No. 24-50125

2 We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Ac cordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 24-50125 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             56,951
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   56,951
<PP&E>                                              1,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                        226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     58,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            4,334
<OTHER-SE>                                         53,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       58,228
<SALES>                                           103,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  103,830
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      44,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   19,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    40,161
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       40,161
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .01
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION 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 of Docucorp International, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Andereck, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and 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/ Michael D. AndereckMichael D. AndereckPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJune 7, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 155 (Monday, August 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 45731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17502]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than September 15, 
2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Bank Michigan Financial, Brooklyn, Michigan; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring Bank Michigan, Brooklyn, Michigan.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 
2021.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-17502 Filed 8-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
July 3, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MONDRE KETCHUM, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00464-CR

NO. 14-12-00465-CR 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record 

indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert E. Mead, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                 
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Dated: May 12, 2011 |  | /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD              
|                    |  | Robert E. Mead                  
|                    |  | Chairman of the Board, Chief    
|                    |  | Executive Officer, and President
5 teen

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

9

Nereis | lames B.Moran | Sein

CASE NUMBER 03 C 2770 DATE 8/27/2003

CASE National Satellite Sports, Inc. Vs. El Gallo Bravo ete. et al.

TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) 0 Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due__.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on setfor_ at
(5) QO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—sset for at.
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—_setfor__—at__.
(7) a} Trial{set for/re-set for] on__at
(8) ia) (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__—_—at
(9) oa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(ao) [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. We believe that the appropriate

damages are $15 times 50, times seven(to build in a deterrence factor), plus fees and costs of $2,125, or

$7,375.00.

(11) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

a | Docketing to mail notices.

7 | Mail AO 450 form. 4UN0D LOWLSIO "SN
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. yas
Gd:h Hd 62 9N¥ 60
courtroom
ue ima QuLL34900 id4 OF

Datditifdeteceived in
central Clerk's Office



~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION DOCKETED

NATIONAL SATELLITE SPORTS, INC., ) SEP 02 2003
a Florida corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 03 C 2770
)
EL GALLO BRAVO SU TAQUERIA, INC,, —)
an Illinols corporation, d/b/a EL GALLO y
BRAVO, and DAVID LOPEZ, individually, )
)
Defendants. )
IEMORAND INIO) ER

Plaintiff seeks total damages of $172,125 for defendants’ unauthorized telecast of a
boxing match on September 29, 2001. There is no doubt that defendants were well aware that
the telecast was unauthorized. They should have paid $15 times the authorized maximum
occupancy of the bar, and they paid nothing. We are not told what the occupancy maximum
was, other than that there were approximately 17 customers there at the time. Photographs
would indicate that the maximum occupancy could not have been more than 50. In those
circumstances, we believe that the appropriate damages are $15 times 50, times seven (to build

in a deterrence factor), plus fees and costs of $2,125, or $7,375.

JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court

: Aa a7 , 2003.