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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1961 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit certain unfair credit practices, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2019 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit certain 

unfair credit practices, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Lend5 ing Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBLIGOR TRANSACTIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lend8 ing Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1961 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 140B. UNFAIR CREDIT PRACTICES. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In connection with the extension 

3 of credit or creation of debt in or affecting commerce, as 

4 defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

5 (15 U.S.C. 44), including any advance of funds or sale 

6 or assignment of future income or receivables that may 

7 or may not be credit, no person may directly or indirectly 

8 take or receive from another person an obligation that con9 stitutes or contains a cognovit or confession of judgment 

10 (for purposes other than executory process in the State 

11 of Louisiana), warrant of attorney, or other waiver of the 

12 right to notice and the opportunity to be heard in the 

13 event of suit or process thereon. 

14 ‘‘(b) EXEMPTION.—The exemption in section 104(1) 

15 shall not apply to this section.’’. 

16 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

17 (1) Section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act 

18 (15 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by adding at the end 

19 the following: 

20 ‘‘(ff) The term ‘debt’ means any obligation of a per21 son to pay to another person money— 

22 ‘‘(1) regardless of whether the obligation is ab23 solute or contingent if the understanding between 

24 the parties is that any part of the money shall be 

25 or may be returned; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1961 IS

1 ‘‘(2) that includes the right of the person pro2 viding the money to an equitable remedy for breach 

3 of performance if the breach gives rise to a right to 

4 payment; and 

5 ‘‘(3) regardless of whether the obligation or 

6 right to an equitable remedy described in paragraph 

7 (2) has been reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, 

8 matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, 

9 or unsecured.’’. 

10 (2) Section 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act 

11 (15 U.S.C. 1640) is amended by striking ‘‘creditor’’ 

12 each place the term appears and inserting ‘‘person’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### RODGERSON v. DAVIS

No. 109 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 173.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 December 1975.
<PAGE>   1
11. Statement re computation of per share earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Second Quarter Ended                     Six Months Ended
                                                    3/31/97            3/31/96            3/31/97             3/31/96
                                                    -------            -------            -------             -------
<S>                                               <C>                <C>                 <C>                <C>      
Shares outstanding at beginning of
  period                                          7,537,169          7,271,515           7,450,878          7,227,972

Net issuance of shares under stock
  award plans, weighted average                      72,750             67,183              90,952             69,186
                                                -----------        -----------         -----------        -----------

Weighted average shares
  outstanding                                     7,609,919          7,338,698           7,541,830          7,297,158

Assumed exercise of stock options,
  weighted average of incremental
  shares                                                 --            443,956                  --            467,260
                                               ------------       ------------        ------------       ------------

Average shares and common share
  equivalents outstanding                         7,609,919          7,782,654           7,541,830          7,764,418
                                                  =========          =========           =========          =========

Net income (loss) per share                      $    (.04)           $    .19          $    (.16)           $    .34
                                                 ==========           ========          ==========           ========

Net income (loss) in thousands                    $   (338)             $1,485            $(1,176)             $2,630
                                                  =========             ======            ========             ======
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WELSEY BANES,

1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

ANDREA COSTNER,

Respondent Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 261, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ in and for New Castle County

§ 

§ File No. CN16-01611

§ Petition Nos. 17-001661 &

§ 17-02255

§ 

 Submitted: June 26, 2018

 Decided: July 3, 2018

O R D E R

This 3rd day of July 2018, it appears to the Court that the Chief Deputy Clerk 

issued a notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant's failure to pay the filing fee or to 

file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis requesting a waiver of the fee. The 

appellant has not responded to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day 

period and has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Dismissal of the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the appellants under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
#### STATE v. TWIDDY

No. 77 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 155.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 November 1978.
Case 1:07-cv-03555-BSJ-THK Document 5 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### WILLOW MOUNTAIN CORP. v. PARKER

No. 54 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 718.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1978.
#### STATE v. HARRIS

No. 24 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 122.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976.
#### STATE v. HANSEN

No. 138 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 459.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 March 1976.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------



          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report
of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of
the Company.




                               NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.
                               -------------------------------------------
                                             (Registrant)




                               /s/ Ronald J. Evans
                               -----------------------------
                               President and
                               Chief Executive Officer




                               /s/ Paul R. Chastain
                               -----------------------------
                               Vice President and
                               Chief Financial Officer
                              (Principal Financial Officer)





Date:     May 16, 2005
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 29 , 201 9

Decided August 30 , 201 9

Before

DIANE P. WOOD
, Chief Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER
, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE
, Circuit Judge

No. 19

- 1002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, Plaintiff

- Appellee
,

v

.

MICHAEL E. GRIESINGER
, Defendant

- Appell ant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

.

No. 3: 1 8

- CR

- 30094

- DRH

- 1

David R. Herndon
, Judge

.

O R D E R

Michael Griesinger , a federal inmate
, pleaded guilty to assault ing another inmate in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) and was sentenced within the relevant applicable guidelines range to 46 months ’ imprisonment, to run consecutive ly to the remainder of the sentence he was serving. Griesinger now appeals his sentence, but his appointe d counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw. See Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Griesinger did not respond to counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and addresses potential issues that we might expect an appeal of this kind to involve, so we limit our review to the subjects that he discuss es

. See United States v. Wagner , 103 F.3d 551, 552

– 53 (7th Cir. 1996). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 19

- 1002 Page 2

Counsel inf orms us that he consult ed wit h Griesinger and that Griesinger does not wis h to challenge or withdraw his guilty plea

. Accordingly, counsel properly avoids discussing the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v. K onczak , 68 3 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012).

C ounsel does consider whether Griesinger could challenge his sentence but correctly concludes that such a challenge would be frivolous. Counsel explains that the district judge accurately calculated an offense level of 1 6 and a criminal history category of VI , yielding a guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. Further, we are entitled to treat Griesinger’s within

- guidelines sentence as presumptively reasonable

. See United States

v. Mykytiuk , 4 15 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Counsel does not identify any reason to challenge that presumption here, and we discern none. The judge properly addressed all Griesinger’s principal arguments and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by discussin g Griesinger’s personal history and characteristics, including his “rough upbringing” and “extraordinary disadvantages” as a child, as well as the need for deterrence in a prison setting, where an assault could have “resulted in something much larger.” Las tly
, counsel notes that challenging the consecutive nature of Griesinger’s sentence would be pointless, given the Sentencing Commission’s instruction that a sentence for an offense committed during imprisonment should “ run consecutively to the undischarged term of imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a).

Accordingly, w e GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
#### TAYLOR v. SHIRT CO.

No. 18 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 61.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976.
#### 200 Prince Realty, Appellant, v Seth D. Greenberg, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 19, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert M. Olshever*and *Elliot L. Evans*for appellant. *Ellen Sackstein*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered October 10, 1985 affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated in that part of the opinion below which *22holds that respondent Greenberg is entitled to a renewal lease because petitioner’s predecessor knowingly and voluntarily accepted respondent as a successor rent-stabilized tenant in the subject premises.

Hughes, P. J., Riccobono and Parness, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.10


 


Amended and
Restated Power of Attorney


 


I, Zhang Fan, with ID number 110102195701253016 ,
am a shareholder who owns a 0.84% equity interest in Beijing Baihengda Petroleum Technology Co., Ltd.
(" Petroleum Technology ") (" My Equity "). Regarding my equity, I hereby
irrevocably authorize Recon Hengda Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (" Hengda Technology ") to exercise the following
rights during the validity period of this power of attorney:


 


To authorize Hengda Technology
to act as my sole and exclusive agent to exercise all rights on my behalf in my name on matters related to my equity, including but not
limited to the following rights: (1) participate in the shareholders’ meeting of Petroleum Technology and execute the relevant shareholders’
resolutions on my behalf; (2) exercise all the shareholder rights that I have in accordance with the law and the articles of association
of Petroleum Technology, including but not limited to shareholders’ voting rights, the right to sell or transfer or pledge or dispose
of all or any part of my equity; and (3) as my authorized representative, designate and appoint the legal representative, chairman of
the board, directors, supervisors, general manager and other senior management personnel of Petroleum Technology.


 


Hengda Technology will have
the right to sign the revised and restated exclusive right of purchase contract (I shall be a party to the contract) on my behalf and
within the scope of authorization, and perform the assignment contract as a party to the contract on the same day as this power of attorney.
The exercise of the revised and restated equity pledge contract and the revised and restated exclusive right of purchase contract signed
will not impose any restriction on the exercise of this authorization.


 


Except as otherwise stipulated
in this power of attorney, all actions of Hengda Technology regarding my equity can be made in accordance with its own judgment without
any oral or written instructions from me.


 


All acts of Hengda
Technology regarding my equity shall be regarded as my own, and all signed documents shall be deemed to have been signed by me, and I
will recognize it.


 


Hengda Technology has the right
to delegate, and can re-delegate other individuals or units on its own for the handling of the above matters and the exercise of its own
equity without notifying me or obtaining my consent in advance, but it shall notify me immediately afterwards, and such delegated rights
The exercise shall not harm my interests.


 


While I am a shareholder of
Petroleum Technology, this power of attorney is irrevocable and continues to be valid, starting from the date of signing this power of
attorney.


 


During the period of this power
of attorney, if I need to exercise all the rights related to my equity that have been authorized to Hengda Technology through this power
of attorney, I shall negotiate with Hengda Technology.


 


 


	 	/s/ Zhang Fan
	 	Zhang Fan
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Effective as of April 1, 2019
**Exhibit 10.10**

 

**EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TERM SHEET**

 

The Compensation Committee for Vision Bancshares, Inc. met on January 11, 2005, unanimously making the followingrecommendations which were approved by the Company’s Board of Directors at its regular meeting on January 31, 2005: J. Daniel Sizemore, Chairman and CEO, received a salary increase of $36,500 for a total annual compensation of $275,000 andWilliam E. Blackmon, CFO received a salary increase of $10,000 for a total annual compensation of $131,900. Robert S. McKean, President, Vision Bank (Alabama), received a one time bonus in the amount of $16,700 in lieu of an annual salary increase.

 

Incentive bonuses were approved for the following executiveofficers of the Company and its subsidiaries: J. Daniel Sizemore, Chairman and CEO, $78,705; William E. Blackmon, CFO, $40,227; Robert S. McKean, President, Vision Bank (Alabama), $45,375; and Joey W. Ginn, President, Vision Bank (Florida), $17,025.

 

Stock options were granted, effective January 31, 2005, underthe Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan to the following executive officers of Company and its subsidiaries: J. Daniel Sizemore, Chairman and CEO, was granted 4,000 shares; William E. Blackmon, CFO, was granted 2,500 shares; Robert S. McKean,President, Vision Bank (Alabama), was granted 2,500 shares; and Joey W. Ginn, President, Vision Bank (Florida), was granted 2,500 shares. These options were granted at a strike price of $27.75 per share, were 100% vested at the date of grant andexpire ten years from the date of grant. 

 

Stock options weregranted, effective January 31, 2005, under the Director Stock Option Plan. Each non-employee director of Vision Bancshares, Inc. was granted 2,500 shares. These options were granted at a strike price of $27.75 per share, were 100% vested at the dateof grant and expire ten years from the date of grant.
Case 1:07-cv-03436-LTS     Document 23      Filed 08/19/2008     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 1 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 2 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 3 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 4 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 5 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 6 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 7 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 8 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 9 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 10 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03450-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 11 of 11
#### HARRIS v. HENRY’S AUTO PARTS

No. 276P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 90.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982.
Case 1:07-cv-03523-NRB Document 5 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03523-NRB Document 5 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03523-NRB Document 5 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03523-NRB Document 5 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 4
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  into  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-111303,  333-34420 and 333-73650),
pertaining to the Jacada Ltd. 2003 Share Option and Incentive Plan,  Jacada Ltd.
1999 Share Option and Incentive Plan, the Jacada Ltd. 1996 Share Option Plan and
to the Jacada Ltd. 1994 Stock Option Plan, of our report, dated February 3, 2005
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Jacada Ltd. included in
its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended  December 31, 2004,  filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Tel-Aviv, Israel                                KOST, FORER, GABBAY and KASIERER
June 28, 2005                                   A member of Ernst & Young Global
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 14, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00470-CV

CHIRON POINT INVESTMENTS FUND I, LLC, Appellant V. SCOTT H. HOWARD, EDWIN B. HOWARD, AND KENNETH S. BRODY, Appellees
On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-09150



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant has
informed the Court that it no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, we grant
appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

140470F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

CHIRON POINT INVESTMENTS FUND I, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-14-00470-CV V.

SCOTT H. HOWARD, EDWIN B. HOWARD, AND KENNETH S. BRODY, Appellees On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-09150. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Francis and Lang-Miers, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered August 14, 2014
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

            I, Raymond L. Carr, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterending June 30, 2008 of Kentucky Investors, Inc.;

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.         The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared,

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation, and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal controls over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal controls over financial reporting; and

 

5.         The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, tothe registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors:

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

| Date: August 8, 2008
By: /s/Raymond L. Carr 
Raymond L. Carr 
Vice President - Chief Financial Officer  
 
  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|