alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas NAUMAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 67841.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David R. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Certification Pursuant to
                        1850 USC, Section 1350,
                        As Adopted Pursuant To
           Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Willis Hale, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peer
Review Mediation and Arbitration, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

      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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  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 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 officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

         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.

Date: November 22, 2010            /s/Willis Hale
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Willis Hale
                                   Chief Executive Officer
Amendment No. 1 to the Huron Consulting Group Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan


    EXHIBIT
      10.42

    

      Amendment
        No. 1 to the 

      Huron
        Consulting Group Inc.

      2003
        Equity Incentive Plan

       

       

      This
        Amendment No. 1 to the Huron Consulting Group
        Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of November 1,
        2006.

       

      WITNESSETH:

       

      WHEREAS,
        pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Plan, the
        board of directors of Huron Consulting Group Inc. (the “board”) may amend the
        Plan; and


     

    
      WHEREAS,
        the board has determined to amend the
        Plan;


     

    
      NOW,
        THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as
        follows:


      1. The
        last
        paragraph of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its
        entirety as follows:

       

      
        “In
          the
          event of a merger, consolidation, reorganization, recapitalization, stock
          split,
          stock dividend, extraordinary dividend, or other similar change in the
          structure
          or capitalization of Company, the Administrator shall
          make
          an
          appropriate adjustment to the (a) number and kind of Shares or other securities,
          cash or property that may be delivered under the Plan, (b) number and kind
          of
          Shares or other securities, cash or property subject to outstanding Awards,
          (c)
          exercise price of outstanding Equity Options and Equity Appreciation Rights
          and
          (d) other characteristics or terms of the Awards as the Administrator
          may,
          in its
          sole discretion,
          determine appropriate to equitably reflect such transaction, change or
          distribution.”
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








In
connection with the quarterly report of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ralph
Walther, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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 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
      Company.











Date:  May
15, 2009





/s/ Ralph WaltherRalph
      WaltherVice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Thomas W. Colligan, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the
      Board of Directors and Treasurer of YACHT FINDERS, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
      HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
      The
      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
      (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
      this **** 6th
      day
      of August, 2008.





*/s/
                Thomas W. Colligan*Thomas
                W. ColliganChief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      YACHT FINDERS, INC. and will be retained by YACHT FINDERS, INC. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5843 

To temporarily extend the National Flood Insurance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana (for himself and Ms. LETLOW) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To temporarily extend the National Flood Insurance 

Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NFIP Stopgap Act 

5 of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 (a) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

8 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2023’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘January 15, 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5843 IH

1 (b) PROGRAM EXPIRATION.—Section 1319 of the Na2 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2023’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘January 15, 2024’’. 

5 (c) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—If this Act is 

6 enacted after September 30, 2023, the amendments made 

7 by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as if enacted 

8 on September 30, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

REBECA RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

MARIO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00041-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010CM2088)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that there is no final judgment or appealable order, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and 

interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 

191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from 

certain interlocutory orders). Appellant filed notice of appeal indicating that she is appealing an 

interlocutory order signed by the trial court on January 10, 2019 granting a motion to disqualify 

Appellant’s attorney. No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order disqualifying 

counsel. The Clerk of the Court sent Appellant notice that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal 
- 2 -

for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment or appealable order. Appellant did not 

file any response. Accordingly, we dismiss the attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

February 15, 2019

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
H. R. 5712 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 220 Fremont 

Street in Kiel, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Trooper Trevor J. Casper Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TROOPER TREVOR J. CASPER POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 220 Fremont Street in Kiel, Wisconsin, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Trooper Trevor J. Casper Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Trooper Trevor J. Casper Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Kenneth Lannell FRAZIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46313.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 12, 1993.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11471]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 292

RIN 0596-AB39


Smith River National Recreation Area

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; change of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is giving notice of a change in the 
effective date of the Smith River National Recreation Area final rule. 
The Smith River final rule was published in the Federal Register on 
April 3, 1996, (61 FR 14621) and became effective on that date. 
However, at the time of submission, the Forest Service was unaware of 
the new statutory requirements concerning Congressional review of 
regulations. Public Law 104-121, Subtitle E, Section 251, 
``Congressional Review'' requires the agency to submit a report and a 
copy of a final regulation to each House of Congress and to the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), when the rule is published in the Federal 
Register. The effective date of a published rule must be later than the 
publication date in order to allow time for Congressional review. A 
report and a copy of the rule were submitted to Congress and the GAO on 
May 3, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The new effective date for this rule is May 23, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Hotchkiss, Minerals and Geology 
Management Staff, Forest Service, USDA, (202) 205-1535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule (36 CFR Part 292) implements 
Section 8(d) of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act of 1990 
and sets forth the procedures by which the Forest Service will regulate 
mineral operations on National Forest System lands within the Smith 
River National Recreation Area. This rule supplements existing Forest 
Service regulations and is intended to ensure that mineral operations 
are conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the 
Smith River National Recreation Area was established.

    Dated: May 3, 1996.
David G. Unger,
Associate Chief.
[FR Doc. 96-11471 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Benjamin C. Weston, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC,the manager of ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

Date:  May 15, 2007
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN C. WESTON |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Benjamin C. Weston                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael JONES, Defendant/Appellant. Michael JONES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 63551, 66189.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 11, 1995.

S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury for one count of second degree murder, § 565.021, RSMo 1994, two counts of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1994, and three counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms of life imprisonment on each count. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We *505affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1    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 of Learning Quest Technologies, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Fred Hall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Fred Hall Fred Hall Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Date: November 13, 2007
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF MOTHERS WORK, INC.

|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                       |  | STATE OR OTHER
JURISDICTION OF
INCORPORATION OR
ORGANIZATION |  | OTHER NAMES UNDER
WHICH SUBSIDIARY
DOES BUSINESS
|---------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Cave Springs, Inc.                       |  | Delaware                                                     |  | N/A                                             
|Confecciones Acona S.A.                  |  | Costa Rica                                                   |  | N/A                                             
|Mothers Work Canada, Inc.                |  | Delaware                                                     |  | N/A                                             
|Maternity Factory Warehouse Centre, Inc. |  | Canada                                                       |  | N/A                                             

---

QuickLinks
EX-10.23



 





Exhibit 10.23




Premium Standard Farms, Inc.

Description of

Incremental Performance Bonus Plan




	 	 	 
	Adoption:

	 	Adopted by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors
of Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (the
“Company”) on September 29, 2006
	 
	 	 
	Purpose:

	 	To compensate certain employees of
the Company whose efforts will be
critical to the closing of the
pending merger between the Company
and a subsidiary of Smithfield
Foods, Inc.
	 
	 	 
	Participants:

	 	Five officers, including three
executive officers, of the Company,
including Stephen A. Lightstone, the
Company’s Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer and a named executive
officer of the Company
	 
	 	 
	Amount of Bonuses:

	 	The Compensation Committee
recommended that performance bonuses
be paid in an aggregate amount of up
to $425,000, with Mr. Lightstone
eligible to receive a performance
bonus of up to $100,000
	 
	 	 
	Bonuses are Discretionary:

	 	 All performance bonuses paid under
the Plan will be discretionary and
subject to the approval of the
Company’s Chief Executive Officer
and its Chairman of the Board of
Directors






31
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles D. DAVENPORT, Defendant/Appellant. and Charles D. DAVENPORT, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 39584.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 27, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 29, 1990.

Charles D. Davenport, pro se, Jefferson City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., and Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from conviction of first degree robbery and armed criminal action under sections 569.020 and 571.015, RSMo 1986. This appeal is consolidated with his appeal from denial, after evidentia-ry hearing, of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Walnut Valley Ventures, Inc. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
L.  Hodges,  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Helen I. MANDEVILLE, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Missouri, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 64098.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 22, 1994.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Jesse W. Ullom, Susman, Schermer, Rim-mel & Shifrin, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue appeals an order denying her motion to set aside a default judgment. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).