alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001043497
<NAME> CREDITRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,281
<SECURITIES>                                    29,741
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          10,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                     918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,046
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,485
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,618
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,618
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

AP-75,889

EX PARTE BARRY S. DAVIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 92F0083-005-A IN THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BOWIE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,

the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus.

Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of

aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his

conviction.

Applicant contends that the sentence is illegal because it is outside the sentencing range for

the third degree felony offense of aggravated assault. We remanded this application to the trial court

for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 Aggravated assault against a person who was not a member of a designated class, such 1

as peace officers, later became a second degree felony for offenses committed on or after

September 1, 1994.

The judgment reflects that this offense was committed April 19, 1991. The trial court has

determined that Applicant pled guilty to causing serious bodily injury to his wife and that all

enhancements were waived. The court also found that Applicant’s plea was entered pursuant to an

agreement.

At the time this offense was committed aggravated assault was a third degree felony, so a 1

punishment of twenty years was not authorized. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Beck, 922

S.W.2d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. D-202-CR-92-83 in the 202 Judicial District nd

Court ofBowieCounty is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Bowie

County to answer the charge against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: April 9, 2008

Do Not Publish
#### Jacqueline M. Nesci, Respondent, v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester et al., Appellants.

Memorandum: Plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of water on the floor near a buffet table at a senior citizens club luncheon. In our view, Special Term properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The record indicates that defendants had knowledge of a dangerous condition and took some precautions to remedy the situation. The reasonableness of defendants’ actions, in light of the circumstances, presents a question for the trier of fact. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cur-ran, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO-500 0777-XQ] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) will be held on May 11, 2000 in Canon City, Colorado. 

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:15 a.m. at the Holy Cross Abbey Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 50, Canon City, Colorado. Topics will include a discussion on the Mining Regulations and update on the Recreation Guidelines for Colorado. 

All Resource Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements to the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. The Center Manager may limit the length of oral presentations depending on the number of people wishing to speak. 

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2000, from 9:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Front Range Center, 3170 East Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ken Smith at (719) 269-8553. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary minutes for the Council meeting will be maintained in the Front Range Center and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. 

Dated: April 11, 2000. 

Stuart L. Freer, 

Associate Front Range Center Manager. 

[FR Doc. 00-9856 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0005088 07-MAR-2014 09:51 AM
#### FEDERAL CEMENT CO. v. SHAFFER.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

February 17, 1916.)

No. 2058.

In Error to tile District Court of the United States for the Eastern. District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge.

Horace Stern and William. Jay Turner, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.

Calvin F. Smith and Smith, *Puff &*Lattb, all of Easton, Pa., for defendant in error.

Before BUFFINGTON, McPHEUSON, and WOOL-LEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in this case, the Federal Cement Company, having filed a bill in equity in the District Court to No. 1407, September term, 1915, in which this controversy can ho more satisfactorily heard and determined, and having offered to pay into *the*District Court the *money Involved*in this suit, it seems to us that the best way to meet the difficulties presented on this writ of error is to assent to the company’s offer, and to reverse the judgment formally, *but*without expressing an opinion on the legal questions discussed below. 225 Fed. 893. It is therefore ordered that if the Cement Company, on or before the 4th day of March, 1916, pay into the District Court-in the equity proceeding referred to above the amount of coupon interest sued for in this action, with interest thereon, the clerk of this court is directed to enter an order reversing the judgment.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 I, Jeffry N. Quinn, Chief Executive Officer of Solutia Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (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: April 27, 2010
  By:
/s/ Jeffry N. QuinnName:
Jeffry N. QuinnTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc. and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 20 2000

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 98-9069

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 97-00124-4-HLM

SCI LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, f.k.a.

Sunrise Carpet Industries, Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

versus

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

a Connecticut Corporation, HARTFORD 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Connecticut Corporation,

Defendants-Appellants,

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 20, 2000)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

The facts in this case are set out in our prior opinion, in which we certified the

following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia on a controlling issue of law:

DOES SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR RETALIATION BY A

SUPERVISOR TRIGGER EXCLUSION SIXTEEN ON PAGE THREE

OF THE UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICY IN THIS CASE,

WHERE THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDES: “COVERAGE

AFFORDED ANY OF [THE INSURED’S] EMPLOYEES TO

‘BODILY INJURY’ OR ‘PERSONAL INJURY’ . . . TO OTHER

EMPLOYEES ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR

EMPLOYMENT”?

SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999).

The Supreme Court of Georgia responded, “we find that exclusion sixteen of the

umbrella policy does not exclude coverage for Sunrise’s claims originating from the

sexual harassment suit.” SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 526 S.E.2d 555,

556 (Ga. 2000). In light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s response, we find that the

district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff-Appellee SCI Liquidating Corporation

(“SCI”) was covered under the umbrella policy’s “personal injury” provisions. 

The district court found that SCI was covered under both the umbrella policy’s

“personal injury” provisions and the commercial general liability policy’s “bodily

injury” provisions. We reaffirm our prior holding that the district court erred in

finding coverage under the commercial general liability policy. See SCI Liquidating
3

Corp., 181 F.3d at 1217. Thus, we reverse the judgment for SCI against DefendantAppellant Hartford Fire Insurance Company. 

Because we conclude that SCI was covered under the umbrella policy and

because the amount of damages is not in dispute, we affirm the judgment for SCI

against Defendant-Appellant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company in the amount of

$ 187,972.21, plus prejudgment interest, and $3,384 in costs.

REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.
# Central I-9

La ley federal requiere que cada empleador * reclutador agrícola, que refiere por pago, o contrata a una persona para empleo en EE.UU. debe completar el Formulario I-9, Verificación de Elegibilidad de Empleo. El Formulario I-9 le ayudará a verificar la identidad de su empleado y su autorización de empleo.

*NOTA: Nos referiremos tanto a empleadores como a reclutadores agrícolas y personas que refieren, pagados colectivamente como "empleadores" a través de la Central I-9.

## Titulares más recientes

TPS para Birmania (Myanmar) extendido y redesignado por 18 meses; Ciertos EAD se extienden automáticamente hasta el 25 de mayo de 2025

25 de marzo de 2024

Se Extiende y Redesigna a a Siria al TPS por 18 Meses; Ciertos EAD se han Extendido Automáticamente hasta el 31 de Marzo de 2025

29 de enero de 2024

¡La Cuenta Regresiva Hacia el 1 de Noviembre está en Marcha! - Asegúrese de Utilizar la Versión del Formulario I-9 con Fecha del 01/08/2023

05 de octubre de 2023

## Temas

Formulario I-9

Prevención de Discriminación

Manual para Empleadores

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
# C_2021459EN.01000401.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/4

---

TRANSLATION CENTRE FOR THE BODIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/04)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://cdt.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documentation/pdf/007_2021_cptes_def_adp_en.pdf

---
#### Genbao GAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of HAWAII, Department of the Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-15311.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Genbao Gao, Honolulu, HI, pro se.

Maria C. Cook, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, James Earl Halvorson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Nelson Y. Nabeta, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, - Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Genbao Gao appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *642*Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,*382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gao’s claims raised in his first Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) proceeding because he filed this action more than ninety days after receipt of the right to sue letter. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(e); *Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp.,*892 F.2d 1442, 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (“An action brought under Title VII must be filed within ninety days of receipt of a right to sue letter from the EEOC or appropriate state agency.”).

The district court properly dismissed the discrimination claim because Gao failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. *See also Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp.,*545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008) (conclusory allegations of law are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim); *see also Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing the three prongs for a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination).

The district court properly dismissed Gao’s retaliation claim because Gao failed to allege facts showing that he was terminated because he engaged in a protected activity. *See Learned v. City of Bellevue,*860 F.2d 928, 932-33 (9th Cir.1988) (Title VII protects only those employees who claim retaliation resulting from their opposition to discrimination under Title VII).

The district court also properly dismissed the Title VI claim because Gao did not establish that the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office’s primary objective was to provide employment. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

The district court properly dismissed Gao’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim on Eleventh Amendment grounds. *See Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett,*531 U.S. 356, 360, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) (holding that states are immune from private suits brought in federal court under Title I of the ADA).

Gao’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronnie McCoy, Appellant.

Memorandum: The isolated remarks by the prosecutor on summation to which defendant assigns error were not objected to at trial and, therefore, are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070, 1071), and reversal is not warranted in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). In the totality of the circumstances, the prosecutor’s summation did not operate to deprive defendant of a fair trial *(People v Hopkins,*58 NY2d 1079, 1083; *People v Woodard,*112 AD2d 454).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J. — robbery, first degree, and other offenses.) (Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
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)

         In connection with the annual report of The Quantum Group, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
B. Cohen , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and,

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Quantum Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Quantum
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Signed on June 27, 2005

/s/ DONALD B. COHEN
-------------------
DONALD B. COHEN
Chief Financial Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9776]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00-777; MM Docket No. 99-344; RM-9709]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Lampasas and Leander, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document reallots Channel 255C1 from Lampasas, Texas, to 
Leander, Texas, and modifies the license for Station KJFK to specify 
operation on Channel 255C1 at Leander in response to a petition filed 
by Shamrock Communications, Inc. See 64 FR 71098, December 20, 1999. 
The coordinates for Channel 255C1 at Leander are 30-43-34 and 97-59-23. 
With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MM Docket No. 99-344, adopted March 29, 2000, and released 
April 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the 
Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is 
amended by removing Lampasas, Channel 255C1, and adding Leander, 
Channel 255C1.

    Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-9776 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### GIBBS, Respondent, v. CARNAHAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by Mary K. Gibbs against George A. Carnahan, as executor, etc.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADI EY, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed. For decision at special term, see 25 N. Y. Supp. 780.