alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                         BUTTREY FOOD AND DRUG COMPANY
                             601 6th Street, S.W.
                          Great Falls, Montana 59404

                               November 25, 1996


Peter J. Sodini
c/o Freeman Spogli & Co.
11100 Santa Monica Boulevard
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, California 90025

          Re:  Extension and Modification to Consulting Agreement made and
               entered into as of the 1st day of July, 1991 by and between
               Buttrey Food and Drug Company and Peter J. Sodini, as extended
               and modified by letters dated April 29, 1993, October 28, 1993,
               November 21, 1994 and November 20, 1995
               ----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pete:

          Reference is made to that certain Consulting Agreement made and
entered into as of the 1st day of July, 1991 by and between Buttrey Food and
Drug Company (the "Company") and yourself, as extended and modified by those
certain letters dated April 29, 1993, October 28, 1993, November 21, 1994 and
November 20, 1995 (collectively, the "Agreement").  This letter is intended to
confirm our oral agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional
six month term, from July 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.  The terms of the
extended Agreement are to be identical to the terms of the prior Agreement,
including, in particular, the reduced consulting fee of $75,000 per annum;
provided, however, that the Company and you hereby agree to terminate (as of
November 30, 1996) each party's obligations (previously specified in Section
3(c) of the Agreement) regarding certain medical benefits to be provided to you.

          Could you please confirm our agreement regarding the extended
Agreement by executing this letter where indicated below and returning the
executed copy to my attention at the address above.

                              Very truly yours,

                              BUTTREY FOOD AND DRUG COMPANY


                               /s/ Joseph H. Fernandez
                              ------------------------------------------------
                              Joseph H. Fernandez
                              Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:


 /s/ Peter J. Sodini       
--------------------
Peter J. Sodini
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ GREG PETERSEN
    
    8/12/05Greg Petersen
    
    DateSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated Information
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James G. Garvey, Jr., Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.

/s/ James G. Garvey
------------------------------------
James G. Garvey, Jr.
Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and President

Date: May 15, 2003
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% -0.28% -0.49% -1.98% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

November 13, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Coverage of Employment/Earnings

Proposed Provision: Beginning in 2009, exempt individuals with more than 180 quarters of OASDI payroll tax.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
#### MARY B. BOHANNON v. VIRGINIA TRUST COMPANY et al.

(Filed 10 October, 1934.)

Assistance, Writ of, A a — Only party deriving title immediately from commissioner’s deed is entitled to writ of assistance.

A party purchasing land at a judicial sale is entitled to a writ of assistance to put him in possession, but a purchaser at such sale who transfers his title to a third person before applying for the writ, or who so transfers his title and takes a reconveyance back from his grantee, is not entitled to such writ.

Schenck, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by Sussex Corporation, movant, from *Schenck, J.,*at May Term, 1934, of BuNcombe.

*164Motion, by Sussex Corporation to vacate order entered at tbe May Term, 1933, a year previous, and for writ of assistance.

This was an action to restrain foreclosure under power of sale contained in a deed of trust. Foreclosure was later bad under order of court in equity. Tbe Sussex Corporation became tbe purchaser at tbe commissioner’s sale. Writ of assistance was issued 16 January, 1933. Thereafter, at tbe May Term, 1933, upon motion of plaintiff, the execution of said writ was enjoined or recalled, it appearing that tbe Sussex Corporation, prior to tbe issuance of said writ, bad conveyed all its interest in tbe lands by full warranty deed, without reservation of any bind, to Carl Y. Reynolds. No appeal was prosecuted from this injunction or vacation of tbe writ of assistance. Carl Y. Reynolds then reconveyed tbe property to bis grantor. Upon this change in title, tbe Sussex Corporation again applied in this same cause for another writ of assistance.

This second application was denied upon tbe ground that tbe prior order vacating or recalling tbe original writ was *res judicata,*and that movant’s present title is immediately derived from tbe deed of Carl Y. Reynolds and not from tbe deed of tbe commissioner.

Movant appeals, assigning error.

*Louis A. Whitener and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.*

*Bourne, Parlcer, Bernard & DuBose for movant.*

Stacy, C. J.

It is not perceived upon what theory valid objection to tbe ruling of tbe trial court may be predicated. Having lost its right to a summary writ of assistance by conveying tbe premises to another and allowing tbe matter to be so adjudicated without appeal, movant is in no position to ask for further assistance in tbe present proceeding. Its remedy now is by suit in ejectment.

That one who buys at a judicial sale is entitled to a writ of assistance is not questioned *(Bank v. Leverette,*187 N. C., 743, 123 S. E., 68; *Knight v. Houghtalling,*94 N. C., 408), but movant parted with tbe title which it acquired under tbe commissioner’s deed before applying for such writ. At any rate, it allowed tbe matter to be so adjudged without appeal.

Affirmed.

ScheNCK, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted from Financial
Statements of Enhance Financial Services Group Inc. as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                              5,542
<SECURITIES>                        1,039,642
<RECEIVABLES>                       56,842
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1,357,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                             75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            3,981
<OTHER-SE>                          668,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        1,357,242
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    207,484
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       (35,007)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (53,556)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (8,500)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     112,807
<INCOME-TAX>                        30,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 82,457
<DISCONTINUED>                      (0)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (0)
<CHANGES>                           (0)
<NET-INCOME>                        82,457
<EPS-BASIC>                       2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                       2.10



</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE LIQUIDATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.

(Filed 27 January, 1937.)

Appeal by respondent from *Rousseau, J.,*at June Term, 1936, of G-uileord.

Affirmed.

This matter was heard on the petition of J. F. Cannon, for an order directing J. T. Gfobbel, agent and conservator of the North Carolina Bank and Trust Company, an insolvent banking corporation, to pay his claim against said corporation out of certain assets in the hands of the respondent.

On the facts alleged in the petition and admitted in the answer, it was ordered by the court that respondent pay the claim of the petitioner out of assets in his hands, delivered to him by the Eeeonstruetion Finance Corporation.

Eespondent appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error in the order.

*Lovelace •& Kirlcman for petitioner.*

*Yorle & Boyd for respondent.*

CoNNOR, J.

There is no error in the order in the instant case. It is affirmed. See *Powell v. Hood, Comr. of Banks, ante,*137.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,458
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     83,879
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        443,337
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570,979
<DEPOSITS>                                     446,424
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,319
<LONG-TERM>                                     50,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,910
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 570,979
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 40,154
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,047
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                46,201
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              21,731
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,449
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           20,752
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,689
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 226
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 19,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,711
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,711
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.47
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,251
<LOANS-PAST>                                       530
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,526
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,423
<RECOVERIES>                                       407
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,199
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,199
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 the Annual Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|              |  |  |  |                                                               |  |                     |  |                               
|------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|              |  |  |  | Bank of America, N.A.,Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|              |  |  | 
|March 1, 2007 |  |  |  | By                                                            |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|              |  |  |  |                                                               |  |                     |  | Nancy G. Willis Vice President
NO. 07-08 -002 0-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PANEL C APR IL 8, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ PEAC HTR EE C ON STRU CTIO N, LTD. AN D PEAC HTR EE

C ON STR U C TI ON , IN C ., A PP EL LA N TS

V. MA RI ON N EAL H EAD , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 17 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; TH NO . 017 -2 14779- 05; H ON ORABLE FR ED W . D AVIS , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.
ON JOI NTM OT ION T O D ISM ISS By opin ion and ju dgme nt dat ed March 10, 2 009 , this Court af f irmed the trial court’s jud g ment aw ardin g Appel lee , Ma ri on Nea l Hea d damag es of $191,970 w it h preju dg ment int eresti n hi s p ersonal i nju ry acti on agai nstAppell ants , Peacht re e Const ru cti on, L td. and Peac htree C onst ru cti on, I nc. A moti on for re hear ing w as due on Ma rc h 25, 2009, but w as2

not fil ed. Ins tead, on March 30, 2009, the parti es filed a Joint Motio n to Dism iss i ndi cat ing they hav e ag re ed to co mpromi se and s ettl e the enti re di sput e betw een t hem.
W hil e our

pl enar y pow er co nti nues, w e now

w it hdraw

our opini on and ju dg ment of March 10, 200 9, an d in lieu the reof , grant the joint motion to dismiss the app eal. T ex. R

. App. P. 4 2.1( a)

. Hav ing dismi ss ed the appeal at the req uestof all par ti es and t he dead li ne for fi l i ng a mo ti on for reh ea r i ng ha v i ng ex pi red , ou r ma nd at e w i l l i s s ue for thwith. No agreem entas to costs ha v ing been set forth in th e mo tion , co sts are taxed against Peac htre e C onst ru cti on, L td. and Pe acht re e C onst ru cti on, I nc. per R ule 42.1 (d ) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re .

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed and read this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Kolorfusion International,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this Quarterly Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in
this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
this Quarterly Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e
and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervisions, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;(b)
    
    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 Quarterly Report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this Quarterly 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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
board of directors performing the equivalent functions of an audit committee:
 (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;
and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting; and
 Date: May 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Stephen NagelStephen NagelPresident and Chief Financial Officer
#### Minnie Bayer, as Guardian, etc., Plaintiff, v. James L. Phillips, Defendant.

Judgment ordered for plaintiff, without costs.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41242

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PABLO SIERRA-PESINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-184-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pablo Sierra-Pesina appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States after

having previously been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. 

He argues that the district court erred in characterizing his prior conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana as a drug trafficking

offense and increasing his offense level by 16 additional points pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 24, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-41242 Document: 00512284961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2013
No. 12-41242

Sierra-Pesina concedes that his argument that his conspiracy conviction

was not a drug trafficking offense because, unlike the Model Penal Code, the

federal conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, does not require an overt act, is

foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2012). 

In Rodriguez-Escareno, we concluded that a reasonable interpretation of the

Guidelines provides that conspiring to commit a federal drug trafficking offense

qualifies for the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement. Id. at 753-54. 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is

DENIED as unnecessary.

2

 Case: 12-41242 Document: 00512284961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6542

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BYRON JERMAINE WELTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:10-cr-00136-HMH-1)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Byron Jermaine Welton, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Byron Jermaine Welton appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction, which Welton filed 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Welton’s informal brief does not challenge 

the basis for the district court’s disposition, Welton has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED