alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. JOHN WILLIAM BARRETT, Defendant, and STATE-WIDE BAIL, INC., Surety.

(Filed 22 September, 1954.)

Appeal by the surety on defendant’s appearance bond from *Morris, J.,*March Term 1954, Edgecombe.

Affirmed.

Criminal indictment, heard on motion to vacate or modify judgment absolute entered against the surety on defendant’s appearance bond.

In November 1953 defendant was arrested on a charge of larceny of an automobile. He executed a bond for his appearance at the January Term 1954, Edgecombe County Superior Court with State-Wide Bail, Inc. as surety. At the January Term 1954 judgment *nisi*was entered. *Scire facias*returnable on the first day of the March Term was served on the surety. Judgment absolute was entered 1 March 1954. The surety appeared and moved to vacate said judgment. The motion was denied and said surety appealed.

*Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for appellant.*

*C. H. Leggett for appellee.*

Pee CuRiam.

The facts in this case are substantially on all fours with the facts in *S. v. Dew, ante,*595, except that the surety in its answer alleges that the defendant was at the time of the judgment *nisi*in custody of officers of Hudson County, New Jersey, and the court granted a full hearing. What is said in the opinion in that case is controlling here.

Affirmed.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 

Michael S. Etkin (pro hac vice) 

Andrew Behlmann 

One Lowenstein Drive 

Roseland, New Jersey 07068 

Telephone: 973.597.2500 

Facsimile: 973.597.2400 

E-mail: metkin@lowenstein.com 

E-mail: abehlmann@lowenstein.com 

Bankruptcy Counsel to Lead Plaintiff 

 and the Proposed Class 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

- and – 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

Case No. 19-30088 DM (Lead Case) 

Chapter 11 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

☒ Affects Both Debtors 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Andrew Behlmann, whose business address and telephone number is 

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 

Andrew Behlmann 

One Lowenstein Drive 

Roseland, New Jersey 07068 

Telephone: (973) 597-2332 

Facsimile: (973) 597-2333 

E-mail: abehlmann@lowenstein.com 

is an active member in good standing of the bar of the State of New Jersey, having applied in the 

above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Northern District of California on a pro hac 

vice basis, representing the Lead Plaintiff Public Employees Retirement Association of New 

Mexico (collectively “Lead Plaintiff”) and the proposed class Lead Plaintiff represents in In re 

PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-03509-RS, filed in the United 

States Court for the Northern District of California, in the above-entitled action,

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3637-1 Filed: 08/21/19 Entered: 08/21/19 13:19:44 Page 1

of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and 

conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac

vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application 

will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in this action are subject to the 

Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures adopted by the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

**END OF ORDER** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3637-1 Filed: 08/21/19 Entered: 08/21/19 13:19:44 Page 2

of 2
Exhibit 10(j)

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                        INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
                          SONOMA NATIONAL BANK

Recital
-------

This Amendment No. 1 to the Indemnification Agreement (the "Agreement")
dated February 16, 1993 between Patrick R. Gallaher, ("Indemnitee"), and
Sonoma National Bank, a national banking association (the "Association"),
is made as of the 27th day of September, 2005, for the purpose of
clarifying Paragraph 7 of the Agreement regarding the laws and/or
regulations that limit the Association's ability to indemnify Indemnitee.

Agreement
---------

     1.  Amendment to Paragraph 7 of Indemnification Agreement.
         ------------------------------------------------------

     Paragraph 7 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of a
     new Subsection (b) to read in its entirety as follows:

     "(b) Applicable Law.  To indemnify Indemnitee for expenses, penalties
          ---------------
     or other payments, or for any other amounts, in violation of
     applicable banking laws or regulations including, but not limited to,
     Section 12 U.S.C. 1828(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the
     regulations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation thereunder,
     or the regulations of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
     as now or hereafter in effect."

2.  Renumbering of Subsections.
    ---------------------------

    Subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Paragraph 7 of the Agreement are
    hereby renumbered as Subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f), respectively.

Authorized Signatures
---------------------

     In order to bind the parties to this Amendment No. 1 to this
     Agreement, their duly authorized representatives have signed their
     names below on the dates indicated.

Sonoma National Bank                            Date Executed:  9/27/05
                                                              ----------
By        /s/ Deborah A. Meekins
          -------------------------
Address:      801 Fourth Street
              Santa Rosa, CA  95404

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

INDEMNITEE    Patrick R. Gallaher               Date Executed:   9/27/05
                                                               ---------

Signature  /s/ Patrick R. Gallaher
          ------------------------
Address:       531 Sauvignon Place
               Windsor, CA 95492
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





I,
Ronald H. Friesen, principal financial officer of Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September
30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Ronald H.
      FriesenRonald
      H. FriesenSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer)November
      14, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 11, 2010 

Order 

 

February 11, 2010 

138959 

138969 (144) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138959 

 COA: 269505 

Saginaw CC: 02-021097-FH 

TOD KEVIN HOUTHOOFD a/k/a TODD 04-024765-FH 

KEVIN HOUTHOOFD, 05-025865-FH 

Defendant-Appellee. 

______________________________________ 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138969 

 COA: 269505 

Saginaw CC: 02-021097-FH 

TOD KEVIN HOUTHOOFD a/k/a TODD 04-024765-FH 

KEVIN HOUTHOOFD, 05-025865-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

______________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant-appellee for extension to 

January 29, 2010 of the time for filing his brief is considered and it is GRANTED.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4192-2    Filed: 10/11/19    Entered: 10/11/19 10:22:19    Page 1of 1
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




                                                          Three Months Ended                      Six Months Ended
                                                               March  31                              March 31
                                                              ----------                              --------
                                                          1997            1996                 1997              1996
                                                          ----            ----                 ----              ----

<S>                                                <C>               <C>                   <C>    <C>       <C> 
Net loss                                           $(  1,459,000)    $( 1,125,000)         ( 3,381,000)     ( 1,416,000)

Deemed Preferred Stock Dividend relating to
    in-the-money conversion terms                        496,000                -              717,000                 -

Accretion on Preferred Stock                             155,000                -              295,000                 -
                                                      ----------       ----------          -----------        ----------

Net loss applicable to common stockholders          $( 2,110,000)    $( 1,125,000)        $( 4,393,000)     $( 1,416,000)
                                                     ===========       ==========           ==========        ==========

Net loss per common share                           $(      0.12)    $(      0.09)        $(      0.26)     $(      0.12)
                                                      ==========       ==========           ==========        ==========

Weighted average number of shares of
    common stock outstanding                          17,789,405       12,096,054           16,996,221        12,145,428
                                                      ==========       ==========           ==========        ==========

</TABLE>
Transaction Type by Project

Summary of Expenditures by Project and Type

PG&E Corporation, et al. (Case No. 19-30088 (DM))

For the Period June 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019

Total 

Expenditures

Exhibit F

PwC LLP - Management, Tax and Advisory Consultants to the Debtors

Fixed Fee Services

Claims Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-B

Lodging $750.00

Subtotal - Expenditures Sought for Claims Services $750.00

Controls Testing Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-I

Meals $555.82

Mileage Allowance $88.16

Public/Ground Transportation $132.24

Subtotal - Expenditures Sought for Controls Testing Services $776.22

Subtotal - Expenditures Sought for Fixed Fee Services $1,526.22

Hourly Services

Strategic Analysis Services Retention Exhibit #: 03

Airfare $8,974.12

Lodging $11,462.52

Meals $2,747.71

Mileage Allowance $53.36

Parking $120.52

Public/Ground Transportation $2,047.13

Subtotal - Expenditures Sought for Strategic Analysis Services $25,405.36

Subtotal - Expenditures Sought for Hourly Services $25,405.36

Total - Expenditures Sought for Reimbursement $26,931.58

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4459-6 Filed: 10/24/19 Entered: 10/24/19 09:36:20 Page 1

of 1
BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

(;+,%,7%

&203(16$7,21%<:25.7$6.&2'()25

6(59,&(65(1'(5('%<%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

)257+(3(5,2'6(37(0%(57+528*+6(37(0%(5

7$6.

&2'( '(6&5,37,21 +2856 $02817

 $GPLQLVWUDWLYH([SHQVH&ODLPV  

 $VVHW6DOHV6DOHV  

 $XWRPDWLF6WD\  

 %DQNUXSWF\/LWLJDWLRQ  

 %DU'DWH0RWLRQ&ODLPV1RWLFLQJ  

 &DVH$GPLQLVWUDWLRQGRFNHWXSGDWHV:,3DQG

FDOHQGDU  

 &KDSWHU3ODQ3ODQ&RQILUPDWLRQ  

 &RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJVDQG3UHSDUDWLRQ  

 &RUSRUDWHDQG%RDUG,VVXHV  

 ',3)LQDQFLQJ&DVK0JPW+HGJLQJ7UDQVDFWLRQV  

 (PSOR\HH,VVXHV  

 ([FOXVLYLW\  

 ([HFXWRU\&RQWUDFWV/HDVH,VVXHV  



*HQHUDO&DVH6WUDWHJ\LQFOXGHVFRPPXQLFDWLRQVZLWK

&RPPLWWHH  

 +HDULQJVDQG&RXUW0DWWHUV  

 /HJLVODWLYH,VVXHV  

 1RQ%DQNUXSWF\/LWLJDWLRQ  

 1RQ:RUNLQJ7UDYHO  

 'LVWULFW&RXUW/LWLJDWLRQ  

 5HJXODWRU\,VVXHVLQFOXGLQJ&38&DQG)(5&  

 5HWHQWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQV  

 )HH$SSOLFDWLRQ%DNHU  

 )HH$SSOLFDWLRQ2WKHU3URIHVVLRQDOV  

 6FKHGXOHV6WDWHPHQWRI)LQDQFLDO$IIDLUV  

 867UXVWHH)HH([DPLQHU,VVXHV  

 8QVHFXUHG&UHGLWRU,VVXHV&RPPXQLFDWLRQV0HHWLQJV  

 :LWKGUDZ5HIHUHQFH  

 $YRLGDQFH$FWLRQ$QDO\VLV/LHQ$YRLGDQFH$QDO\VLV  

 ,QYHVWLJDWLRQV  

 2WKHU&RQWHVWHG0DWWHUV  

 2SHUDWLRQV  

 .(,3,VVXHV  

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4513-2 Filed: 10/30/19 Entered: 10/30/19 06:30:55 Page 1

of 2
























































BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES



7$6.

&2'( '(6&5,37,21 +2856 $02817

 6XEURJDWLRQ  

 6HFXULWLHV  

 $VVHW$QDO\VLVDQG5HFRYHU\  

 7RUW&ODLPV(VWLPDWLRQ  

 &ODVV&ODLPV,VVXHV  

727$/  

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4513-2 Filed: 10/30/19 Entered: 10/30/19 06:30:55 Page 2

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in 

the Lead Case, No. 19-30088 (DM).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

Date: October 23, 2019

Time: 10:00 AM

Place: Courtroom 17

450 Golden Gate Ave.

16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA

ORDER DENYING DEBTORS’ SECOND EXCLUSIVITY EXTENSION MOTION

On September 25, 2019, debtors PG&E Corporation and Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company filed a motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 

1121(d) to further extend exclusive periods (the “Second 

Exclusivity Extension Motion”) and set it for hearing on October 

23, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. For the reasons set forth in this 

court’s Order Granting Joint Motion of The Official Committee of 

Tort Claimants and The Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Unsecured 

Signed and Filed: October 9, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

October 09, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4168 Filed: 10/09/19 Entered: 10/09/19 14:04:34 Page 1 of

 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

Noteholders to Terminate The Debtors’ Exclusive Periods Pursuant 

to Section 1121(d)(1) of The Bankruptcy Code (entered 

contemporaneously with this order), the court hereby DENIES the 

Second Exclusivity Extension Motion and takes it OFF the October 

23, 2019, calendar.

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4168 Filed: 10/09/19 Entered: 10/09/19 14:04:34 Page 2 of

 2
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certificationof CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers 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, tothe best of his knowledge, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 4,  2005 |                                   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                       |                                   |
|                       | /s/ Paul Pluschkell                    |   |
|                       | Paul Pluschkell                        |
|                       | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                       |                                   |
| Date: August 4,  2005 |                                   |
|                       |                                   |
|                       | /s/ Randall J. Frapart                 |   |
|                       | Randall J. Frapart                     |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer                |

 

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. forpurposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. and will beretained by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5062 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to specify that privilege and confidentiality are maintained when information is shared by certain nondepository covered persons with Federal and State financial 

regulators, 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, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5062 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Examination and Su3 pervisory Privilege Parity Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PRIVILEGE OF INFORMATION SHARED BY CERTAIN 

5 NONDEPOSITORY COVERED PERSONS. 

6 Section 1024(b)(3) of the Consumer Financial Pro7 tection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(3)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘regulators and the State bank 

9 regulatory authorities’’ and inserting ‘‘regulators, 

10 the State bank regulatory authorities, and the State 

11 agencies that licence, supervise, or examine the of12 fering of consumer financial products or services’’; 

13 and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The 

15 sharing of information with such regulators, authori16 ties, and agencies shall not be construed as waiving, 

17 destroying, or otherwise affecting any privilege or 

18 confidentiality such person may claim with respect 

19 to such information under Federal or State law as 

20 to any person or entity other than such Bureau, 

21 agency, supervisor, or authority.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7480

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. INDIA PERLETA SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00210

- HEH

- DJN

- 1; 3:16

- cv 00758

- HEH

- DJN )

Submitted : January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. India Perleta Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : India Perleta Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (20 12). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstr ating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have indepe ndently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John W. Groves, Relator, v. William F. Baker, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

-Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. . No opinion..

Jenks, P. J.,> Hirschberg, Burr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Woodward, J.,. dissented.