alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I am in I am not in Wounded Warrior status Soldier Signature:

IN/OUT PROCESSING

DOCUMENT SUMMARY

For use of this form, see DMPO Local Policy #1 on In/Out Procedures

Information placed on this document is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 and must be protected from unauthorized access or use.

For Official Use Only!

NAME: 

Last, First, MI SSN: PACIDN:

*PCS Orders include all amendments and any 1610s that are a part of the PCS

Description

(UNIT)

Document 

included?

(DMPO)

Action

Required?

Type of document used to Substantiate

Action

(Must be included) Yes No Yes No

Arrival *PCS orders, DD Form 1610,

DD Form 1351-2 (copy)

Leave DA Form 31

BAH- location: _ _ _ _ _

(W/Dep) (WO/Dep)(Partial) 

DA Form 5960, Birth Certificate,

Assignment/Termination of Quarters, 

Marriage Cert, Divorce Decree

PCBAH (Single Soldiers) *PCS orders, DD Form 1610,

DD Form 1351-2 (copy)

Family Separation Allowance 

(FSA)

*PCS orders, DD Form 1610,

DD Form 1351-2 (copy)

CONUS COLA DA Form 4187

Temporary Lodging Allowance 

(TLA)

*PCS orders, DD Form 1610, Statement of

Non-Availability (SNA)/Housing Authority 

Memo, Hotel Receipt (detailed and zeroed 

out), DD Form 1351-2 (copy)

Stop JUMP Pay 

(when required) *PCS orders

In/Out Processing 

Entitlement Information Brief Local Form 9-R 

Incentive Pay (specify)________ Entitlement Orders

Special Pay (specify)__________ Entitlement Orders

Other (specify) ___________ SGLI, Direct Deposit, etc. 

Departure *PCS orders, DD Form 1610

Leave DA Form 31

In/Out Processing 

Entitlement Information Brief Local Form 9-R 

Technician:

NAME: DATE:

Local Form 1-R, revised December 2014 All Previous Versions Obsolete 

SC
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ SHELIA WINSETT, Claimant

- Appellant,

v. Eric K. S hinseki , SECRETARY OF VETER ANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

__________________________ 2012

- 7180

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in N o. 12

- 784, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Shelia Winsett submits a document enti tled “Motion Procedureal Error on Part of Clerk of Court”, which the court treats as a motion for various relief. Upon consideration thereof , I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 12-7180 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2013SHELIA WINSETT V

. SHINSEKI 2

The motion is deferred to the merits panel assigned to hear this case

. F OR T HE C OURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s 21 Case: 12-7180 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2013
## Social Security Program Data

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- Actuarial Publications

 Annual Trustees Reports provide estimates describing the actuarial status of Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds under current law. In making these estimates, the Trustees make key demographic assumptions and economic assumptions. The intermediate set of assumptions reflects the Trustees’ best estimates of future experience. 

Files are available from the following Trustees Reports

Footer menu
<PAGE>



Exhibit 11.1


COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              Three Months Ended               Nine Months Ended
                                                                   July 31,                         July 31,
                                                             2001            2002             2001            2002
                                                      ----------------------------      ------------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>               <C>               <C>
Numerator:
Net income                                            $    543,830    $    101,172      $    818,142      $    936,985
Preferred stock dividends                                  (37,500)              -          (112,500)                -
Cumulative effect of change in
  accounting principle
                                                                 -               -          (576,001)                -
                                                      ------------    ------------      ------------      ------------

Net income available to common
  shareholders
                                                           506,330         101,172           129,641           936,985

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings per share-
  weighted-average shares                               10,214,545      10,016,369        10,076,592         9,914,758

Effect of dilutive securities:
Employee stock options                                           -       1,080,759            12,821           962,532
Convertible preferred stock                              5,137,255               -         3,084,316                 -
                                                      ------------    ------------      ------------      ------------

Dilutive potential common shares                         5,137,255       1,080,759         3,097,137           962,532

Denominator for diluted earnings per
  share adjusted weighted-average
  shares and assumed conversions                        15,351,800      11,097,127        13,173,729        10,877,290

Basic earnings per share                                     $0.05           $0.01             $0.01             $0.09

Dilutive earnings per share                                  $0.04           $0.01             $0.01             $0.09


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10123

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO PEREZ-JIMENEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-354-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Perez-Jimenez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty 

plea for illegal reentry. He argues that the 24-month, above-guidelines 

sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district 

court failed to discuss or account for mitigating factors, including potential 

grounds for a downward departure from the advisory guidelines range. We 

affirm.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10123 Document: 00515173026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2019
No. 19-10123

2

Because Perez-Jimenez did not object to the district court’s explanation 

of his sentence, we review his procedural claim for plain error only. See, e.g., 

United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 2008). The 

district court confirmed that it had considered the guidelines range and

statutory sentencing factors, and it explained that it was imposing an aboveguidelines sentence based upon Perez-Jimenez’s criminal history, which 

included a conviction for indecency with a child that the court found

particularly serious. Although the district court did not directly address

arguments whereby Perez-Jimenez sought to minimize this history and urged 

that time recently served in state custody weighed against further 

imprisonment, the record indicates the court heard these arguments and chose 

to give them little weight. The district court’s explanation for the sentence 

allows for effective review, and was not error, plain or otherwise. We therefore 

conclude that Perez-Jimenez has failed to show procedural error. See United 

States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Perez-Jimenez has also failed to show substantive error, plain or 

otherwise. The record reflects that the district court made an informed, 

individualized assessment in sentencing Perez-Jimenez, and the eight-month 

upward variance imposed is well within the range of variances that we have 

upheld in the past. See, e.g., Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d at 805; United States 

v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2008). The possibility of 

reasonable disagreement with how the district court balanced sentencing

factors does not establish that the sentence is unreasonable. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10123 Document: 00515173026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2019
#### Edward E. Darrow and another, Appellants, v. The Fabric Fire Hose Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
Exhibit 32
 
 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 this annual report on Form 10-K of NeuLion, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his or her knowledge:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date:  March 17, 2011
 
 
 /s/ Nancy LiName:
Nancy LiTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 Date:  March 17, 2011
 
 
 /s/ Arthur J. McCarthyName:
Arthur J. McCarthyTitle:
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

BRUCE J. CHASAN, ESQ.,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM H. PLATT, RETIRED SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, SUSAN PEIKES GANTMAN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE MARIA MCLAUGHLIN, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 10 EM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of May , 2021, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus” is

DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the jurists’ names from the caption.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65349-65350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30745]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 95N-0253J]


Analysis Regarding The Food and Drug Administration's 
Jurisdiction Over Nicotine-Containing Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco 
Products; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; analysis regarding agency jurisdiction; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of August 11, 1995 (60 FR 41453). 
In the notice, FDA published a document entitled ``Nicotine In 
Cigarettes And Smokeless Tobacco Products Is A Drug And These Products 
Are Nicotine Delivery Devices Under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act,'' and announced the availability of appendices to this 
document. The agency has identified some proofreading inaccuracies in 
the references listed in the document. This document corrects those 
errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip L. Chao, Office of Policy (HF-
23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857, 301-827-3380.

    In FR Doc. 95-20052, appearing on page 41453 in the Federal 
Register of 

[[Page 65350]]
August 11, 1995, the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 41556, in footnote 89, ``1588'' is corrected to read 
``1558,'' and on the same page, in footnote 90, in line 1, ``MDG'' is 
corrected to read ``MDB''.
    2. On page 41557, in footnote 91, in line 1, the phrase ``of 
behavioral dependence'' is corrected to read ``of and behavioral 
dependence''.
    3. On page 41558, in footnote 93, in line 4, ``Parmacol. Biochem. 
Behav.'' is corrected to read ``Pharmacol. Biochemistry & Behav.''
    4. On page 41560, in footnote 101, in line 4, ``Page 50'' is 
corrected to read ``Pages 50-51.''
    5. On page 41561, in footnote 105, in line 2, ``231-234'' is 
corrected to read ``231-241.''
    6. On page 41588, in footnote 172, in line 8, ``12641-46'' is 
corrected to read ``02641-02646''.
    7. On page 41621, in footnote 240a, in line 13, ``July 25, 2995'' 
is corrected to read ``July 25, 1995).''

    Dated: December 12, 1995.
William B. Schultz,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-30745 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00402-CR

Derrick WOOLRIDGE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9661

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 19, 2014.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
exv10w6





Exhibit
10.6



SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT




     This amendment (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of June 10, 2009 by and between Risk
Transfer Holdings, Inc. (“RTH”) and Specialty Underwriters’ Alliance, Inc. and its wholly owned
property and casualty insurance subsidiary, SUA Insurance Company (collectively, the “Company”),
and amends the AMENDED AND RESTATED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) entered into by the
parties on JUNE 10, 2005. Any terms defined in the Agreement and used herein shall have the same
meaning in this Amendment as in the Agreement. In the event that any provision of this Amendment
and any provision of the Agreement are inconsistent or conflicting, the inconsistent or conflicting
provision of this Amendment shall be and constitute an amendment of the Agreement and shall
control, but only to the extent that such provision is inconsistent or conflicting with the
Agreement. Any capitalized terms not defined herein shall be defined as in the Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants set forth, the
parties wish to amend the Agreement as follows:




Section 7 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, the Purchaser shall not sell,
assign, transfer, pledge, hypothecate, mortgage or dispose of, by gift or otherwise, or in
any way encumber, any shares of Class B Stock owned by the Purchaser, except for exchanges
and repurchases in compliance with Section 4.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed on their
behalf by their duly authorized officers as of the day, month and year above written.



SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.




	 	 
	 
	By:  	/s/ Daniel A. Cacchione
 
	Name:  	Daniel A. Cacchione 
	Title:  	Senior Vice President, Chief Underwriting Officer 
	 




RISK TRANSFER HOLDINGS, INC.




	 	 
	 
	By:  	/s/ Paul R. Hughes
 
	Name:  	Paul R. Hughes 
	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Northwest Airlines Corporation  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bernard L. Han, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Bernard L. Han |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Bernard L.  Han          |
| Chief Financial  Officer |
| July 20,  2004           |

 

----
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2163

___________________________ Antonio Jose Cooks lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Dean Naylor; Tanya Bishop; Ryan Dreyer; Laekkon McDaniel; Bryce Perry;

Darron Ritchie; Chris Witt; Michael Wade lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________ Submitted: December 30, 2020 Filed: January 5, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Antonio Cooks appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment

in this action under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Whitson v. Stone Cty. Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Estate of William Moore, Deceased.

Decree affirmed, with costs and disbursements to be paid out of the estate. No opinion.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 531 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/21/19 08:58:00 Page 1 of 1
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

Hon. A. P. Pre8twOOd County Auditor Tyler, **Tax&a** Dear Mr. Fre8twoOd:

**h8** been reosIvHon. A. P. Prestwood, January 25, 1939, Page 2

Statute8 of Texasprovides as follows:

"In counties oontainingas many as thirtyaeven thousand, five hundred and cjne(37 501) and not more than sixty thousand (60,000!,or cantsi-fng a city of over twenty-five thousand (25,000) inhabitants,district and oounty orrlcers named herein shall retain one-third of 6uoh excess fees until suoh one-third,togetherwlth the nmo3nt speaifled in hrtiole 3883, amOUIk.8 to Forty-twoHundred and Fifty Dollars ($4250). Precinat officera shall retain one-thirduntil euoh one-third, toeetherwith the amount speolrled In Artlole 3883, amounts to Twenty-twoHundred Dollar8 ($%w#,]." You are, therefora,adrlwd that the 8alarle8 of
~Juustioee of the Peace and Conatableli of SBlith Coumty **are** re-‘ **8peOtiYely,** $1,800.00,plus one-third of the **r888** eol2eotsd In exoess of suoh amount of salary, as provldad la Artlole 3891 80 that 8uch total 8a.laq 8hallnot exoeid the 8111 oi $2,200.00.

We oont~true

Article 3891 to mean that ia #i&gnktiag the exoe88 refI8

to be allowed the88 OffiOeYSJ it 18 Dot Peralsslble to oompute one-t.IQrd or all feO8 0olleOtedbut only one-third of euoh.reeE! in bXOe88 or and am-0 #1,8W*oo. !&at Is%0 

### say, if the total rees oOlleoted shotid k &,000.00, t&e Justioe of Peaoe an4 Oonrtablewould be entltled to Fetaln one-third of $1200.00wbloh would be the 8u~Oi $4W&O, thereby aaking 

### thetotal 8alar and exoe88 fee8 allowed to 8uoh orrhea to be the ma 

### or 3e,%00.00. Very trulyyour8 ATTOW2Y ORMItRAL

OF TBXA8

A88t8taUt

APPROVED:
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## SSI Federal Payment Amounts for 2024
#### FARMERS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. TURNER VINSON and Wife, ELIZABETH VINSON.

(Filed 17 September, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Small, J.,*at July Special Term, 1930, of JoiiNSTON.

Affirmed.

*Jno. A. Narron and Leon*(?. *Stevens for appellant.*

*Wellons & Wellons and Ron & Pou for defendants.*

*808Peb Cueiam.

Upon a petition duly filed by tbe defendants Judge Small made an order on 22 July, 1930, directing certain officers of tbe plaintiff corporation to appear before-tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Johnston County at a designated time to be examined by tbe defendants, who desired information upon which to file their answer. Thereafter tbe plaintiff made a motion to vacate this order. Tbe motion was denied. The judgment is affirmed upon authority of *Buchholz v. Ferguson,*198 N. C., 699, and cases therein cited.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3054]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Compressor Crankshaft Failure Control 
Survey Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 31, 1994, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute (SwRI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing the 
addition of a party to its group research project entitled ``The 
Compressor Crankshaft Failure Control Survey Project''. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, SwRI advised that 
Pipeline and Compressor Research Council, Dallas, TX has become a party 
to the group research project.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership, corporate 
names, or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in 
this group research project remains open, and SwRI intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 13, 1994, SwRI filed is original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 
1994, 58 FR 29825-26.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operators, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-3054 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Out- k&U Aoosfa 'j bnrt: ifejis £>\jZ*Tii>nJ °' / 

### tour} bf CcfniffiL. .flpftflts 6f- TeX* 6.'iMfrtlvfir/'*/3AJ yr p-oLloio: Tr> £i< No, JV?SS'&-£ U>/^^i, 775—02. • ~ - _ / 

### Vcei tfwtn'r tfzctivco ft^J ^^^~'uf ^T)<z^(?)Qoe^



### Qa^>rs^ oi mv*t. fas0 ths. Trttwk5 

### "— ' Al &7ST So

RECEIVED IN COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS APR 02 2015 ,Ab©IAcosta,Oteirk £^\ '-i r>^-
Professional Fees $ 6,560,883.50

Less 100% Travel Fees* (1,135,572.50)

Total Current Fees 5,425,311.00

Expenses 642,335.19 

Total Invoice $ 6,067,646.19

Exhibit A

AP SERVICES, LLC

Summary of Compensation and Expenses – Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al.

For the Period October 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019

*AP Services, LLC (“APS”) has not included any non-working travel time in this invoice. On November

15, 2019, the Order Granting Fee Examiner’s Motion to Approve Fee Procedures (the “Order”) was entered

in the PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company chapter 11 cases. Among other issues, the

Order decrees how non-working travel time can be addressed and invoiced in these chapter 11 cases. APS is

in the process of reviewing non-working travel time incurred from the inception of these chapter 11 cases

through October 31, 2019 and preparing an invoice for that time in compliance with the terms of the Order.

Beginning with the invoice for November 2019 activity, non-working travel time incurred during the billing 

period will be included in the invoice in compliance with the terms of the Order.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4958-1 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 14:20:55 Page 1

of 1