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

<ARTICLE>   9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,521
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,980
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,410
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     42,025
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,313
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,297
<LOANS>                                        203,652
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,784
<DEPOSITS>                                     261,189
<SHORT-TERM>                                       288
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,636
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,898
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 291,784
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,814
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,483
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   260
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,557
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,514
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,618
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,939
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      175
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  12
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,557
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,212
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,212
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.61
<LOANS-NON>                                        978
<LOANS-PAST>                                       496
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,512
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      153
<RECOVERIES>                                        33
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,567
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,567
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            260


</TABLE>
Project Category and Professional Hours

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

Hourly Services and Case Administration - Summary of Hours / Fees by Project and Professional

Total 

Compensation

Exhibit D

Position Rate

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

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

Hourly Services

Rate Case Support Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-L; SUPP 01-J

Reza Jenab Partner $500 4.00 $2,000.00

Cynthia Lorie Director $395 143.50 $56,682.50

Jeremy Chasen Senior Manager $345 1.50 $517.50

Subtotal - Rate Case Support Services 149.00 $59,200.00

Wildfire Mitigation Plan Support Services Retention Exhibit #: SUPP 01-U

Cynthia Lorie Director $395 9.00 $3,555.00

Jeremy Chasen Senior Manager $345 1.50 $517.50

Anthony Kosinski Associate $260 55.00 $14,300.00

Subtotal - Wildfire Mitigation Plan Support Services 65.50 $18,372.50

Subtotal - Hourly Services 214.50 $77,572.50

Case Administration

Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations Retention Exhibit #: CASE

Andrea Clark Smith Director $550 14.50 $7,975.00

Nanette J Kortuem Associate $225 1.40 $315.00

Subtotal - Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations 15.90 $8,290.00

Subtotal - Case Administration 15.90 $8,290.00

Total - Hourly Services and Case Administration 230.40 $85,862.50

Monday, December 30, 2019

Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5230-4 Filed: 12/31/19 Entered: 12/31/19 09:50:48 Page 1

of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER HERRERA

- CASTANEDA,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFF B. SESSIONS , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72489 Agency No. A095

- 723

- 057

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Javier Herrera

- Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Ap peals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 72489

Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 67 4 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the pet ition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera

- Castaneda’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than two years after his final order
of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Herrera

- Castaneda did not

demonstr ate his motion came within a ny statutory or regulatory exception to the
filing deadline , see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (C) (ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(3)

.
Herrera

- Castaneda contends the BIA did not address his contention
regarding equitable tolling . Althou gh his motion to reopen uses the term equitable
tolling, his request also refers to sua sponte reopening, uses the standard for sua
sponte reopening instead of discussing tolling factors, and cites to authority
regarding sua sponte reopening. Because the BIA’s order does address sua sponte
reopening, remand is not warranted

. In light of this decision, we need not address Herrera

- Castaneda’s remaining
contentions regarding the merits of his motion to reopen or eligibility for

cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward H. Orzetti, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: August 11, 2010



/s/ Edward H. OrzettiEdward H. Orzetti
Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: August 11, 2010


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed
as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7369

RONALD F. BUTTS

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CENTRAL CLASSIFICATION BUREAU, Officials; DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, Regional Director/Officials; L. W.

HUFFMAN; LISA EDWARDS; J. PERUTELLI; F. S.

TAYLOR; D. S. LEWIS; MS. LEHMAN; PEGGY NEWTON;

DR. RAMSEY; R. A. FARMER; LIEUTENANT MASON;

LIEUTENANT MOSELY; SERGEANT ZUMBRO; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MEINHARD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

WATSON; J. BOWMAN, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLOUNT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

HURT; L. L. WHITE; R. FELDMAN; MS. WILCHER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CA-01-161-7)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Ronald F. Butts, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ronald F. Butts appeals the district court’s order dismissing

all but one of the claims in his § 1983 action. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here

appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USSPACECOM, Spanish Space Command Sign Liaison Officer Agreement

U.S. Space Command

                COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.  –              **USSPACECOM, Spanish Space Command Sign Liaison Officer Agreement****PETERSON SPACE FORCE BASE, Colo.**USSPACECOM.pa.workflow@us.af.mil
**- 30 -**

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Exhibit H

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4686-8 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 15:50:31 Page 1

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4686-8 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 15:50:31 Page 2

of 2
#### Matthew Nial, Appellant, v. William H. Flandrau, Jr., Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial'granted, costs to abide event.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 07 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 01 13 -TJC -TEM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FELIPE ALBERTO VERGARA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di stric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 2, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ch arl es L. Trun cal e, ap po in te d c ou ns el forFel ip e Verg ara i n thi s d ire ct Case: 12-10075 Date Filed: 11/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2cri min al ap pe al , has m ov edto withdraw fro m furth er re pr es en tati onof the ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the enti re re co rdrev eal s th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andVerg ara’s co nv ic ti onan d se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED .

2

Case: 12-10075 Date Filed: 11/02/2012 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2
       a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Stephen Ambler

Stephen AmblerChief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance
#### Commissioner of Mental Retardation vs. Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc., & others.1

January 12, 1996.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Appeal from order of single justice. *Practice, Civil,*Interlocutory appeal.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

*Judith S. Yogman,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

1

The Bristol Division of the Probate and Family Court Department, the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court for the county of Bristol, and the Appeals Court as nominal parties.

The Commissioner of Mental Retardation (commissioner) brought a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), seeking to stay injunctive and receivership orders entered as part of a contempt judgment of the Bristol Division of the Probate and Family Court Department. A single justice of this court denied the relief requested in the petition. (A motion to stay the challenged injunctive and receivership orders had been previously heard and denied by the Probate and Family Court judge who decided the case and by a single justice of the Appeals Court, see Mass. R. Civ. P. 62 [a], 365 Mass. 829 [1974]; Mass. R. A. P. 6 [a], as amended, 378 Mass. 924 [1979]). The single justice entered a judgment denying the stay sought by the commissioner. The commissioner has appealed from that judgment under the procedure set forth in S.J.C. Rule 2:21, *post*1303 (1995). The commissioner has also moved separately that the full court grant a stay of the challenged orders pending decision of the appeal from the judgment entered by the single justice. The defendant Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc., has moved to dismiss the commissioner’s appeal from the judgment entered by the single justice.

The commissioner’s motion for a stay pending appeal is denied. Since the question of a stay was the subject in issue before the single justice, our denial of the stay renders the present appeal moot, and we shall order it dismissed, noting as well that the appeal has not been properly pursued under rule 2:21 (1), which pertains only to the denial of relief by a single justice from a “challenged interlocutory ruling in the trial court.” The commissioner, if he chooses, may renew his request for a stay of the injunctive and receivership orders in his brief filed on the merits of the appeal.

The commissioner’s motion for stay pending appeal addressed to the full court is denied. The commissioner’s appeal from the judgment entered by the single justice is dismissed.

*So ordered.*

*1011*Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Michael P. Flammia, & Peter F. Carr II*for Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,745,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,108,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 53,880,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            69,301,970
<PP&E>                                      23,180,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,671,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,145
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,562,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,671,519
<SALES>                                    175,255,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           175,255,633
<CGS>                                      106,873,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              106,873,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            81,782,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,960,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (17,637,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,337,406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (18,974,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (18,974,498)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.85)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT
TO THE EFJ, INC.


2005
OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


The Company’s 2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan
(the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows (capitalized terms used herein and
not defined herein shall have the respective meaning ascribed to such terms in
the Plan):


 


1.     The first sentence of Section 4(a) of
the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:


 


“(a)   Shares
Available.   Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(b): (i) the
aggregate number of Shares that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted
under the Plan shall be 2,400,000, of which the maximum number of Shares that
may be delivered pursuant to Incentive Stock Options granted under the Plan
shall be 2,400,000 and (ii) the maximum number of Shares with respect to
which Awards may be granted to any Participant in any fiscal year of the
Company shall be 350,000.”


 


2.    
Except as aforesaid, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1


COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended              Six Months Ended
                                                               April 30,                       April 30,
                                                      ----------------------------   ----------------------------
                                                          2001            2002           2001            2002
                                                      ------------    ------------   ------------    ------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>
Numerator:
Net income                                            $    167,090    $    349,306   $    274,312    $    835,812
Preferred stock dividends                                  (37,500)           --          (75,000)           --
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle           --              --         (576,001)           --
                                                      ------------    ------------   ------------    ------------

Net income (loss) available to common shareholders         129,590         349,306       (376,689)        835,812

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings per share-
  weighted-average shares                               10,109,911       9,915,645     10,006,472       9,863,110

Effect of dilutive securities:
Employee stock options                                        --         1,205,773         35,160         923,925
Convertible preferred stock                              4,515,537            --             --              --
                                                      ------------    ------------   ------------    ------------

Dilutive potential common shares                         4,515,537       1,205,773         35,160         923,925

Denominator for diluted earnings per share
  adjusted weighted-average shares and assumed
  conversions                                           14,625,448      11,121,418     10,041,632      10,787,035


Basic earnings (loss) per share                       $       0.01    $       0.04   $      (0.04)   $       0.08


Dilutive earnings (loss) per share                    $       0.01    $       0.03   $      (0.04)   $       0.08
</TABLE>


                                                                              18